Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—
I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) Order. 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Commonwealth Trade

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in conjunction with interested Scottish trade and commercial associations and the President of the Board of Trade, he will invite selected representatives of each of the Dominions in turn to come to Scotland with a view to increasing her trade with the Commonwealth.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): While my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is primarily responsible for making official arrangements for Commonwealth trade representatives who visit this country under the sponsorship of their Governments, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to co-operate in making them welcome to Scotland at any time, and so, I know, will the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great amount of good will there is in all the Dominions towards Scotland, and will he, not the President of the Board of Trade, take

the initiative in this matter? Does he realise that by some bold imagination we have a chance here of helping Scotland to help herself?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of the considerations that my hon. Friend mentioned, but this is a matter primarily for the President of the Board of Trade.

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Capital Expenditure)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the fact that the capital expenditure on the generation of electricity by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has exceeded by millions of pounds the amounts approved by Parliament, if he will take immediate steps to withdraw his sanction for new schemes and to halt schemes in course of construction unless they are nearing completion.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The reasons why the completed costs of the Board's schemes have in the past exceeded the estimates given to Parliament when the schemes were approved have been most carefully examined but these increases do not, in my right hon. Friend's view, justify taking the action suggested by my hon. Friend. Clearly, my right hon. Friend must consider new schemes on their merits and once a scheme has become operative the Board has a statutory duty to proceed with it.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the twelve schemes completed were approved by Parliament at a cost of £21 million, but that they cost £44 million? Is he also aware that the eleven schemes now in progress were estimated to cost £60 million, that they are still uncompleted, and that the estimated completion cost is £98 million? In the interests of the Board, as well as of the people of Scotland, is not it desirable that the Board should stop and rest awhile consolidating?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that the second part of the supplementary question follows from what my hon. Friend said. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries pointed out that constructional works take a long time to complete. Undoubtedly in the early stages the Board had less experience of these matters than it has now, but the


mere fact that the estimates have been exceeded in the past is not a reason for not going on with schemes at present.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of this is not the responsibility of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board but is due to changes in prices? Further, is he aware that the greatly increased cost of interest is landing the Hydro-Electric Board in much greater capital expenditure?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, I am aware of both those things.

Sir D. Robertson: Is not it the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible to Parliament for the Hydro-Electric Board, and not the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, but the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended that these figures should be given to the House of Commons. It gave the figures in its Report and my right hon. Friend has made arrangements to lay a statement in the Library showing the estimates and the ultimate out-turn.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has noted that the balance sheet and accounts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for 1957 record a small profit in spite of increased purchases of electricity, much less than a full year's benefits from increased charges for electricity, £2,292,118 charged against revenue for redemption of capital, £798,677 for capital depreciation and £4,929,706 for interest on borrowing; and if he will now therefore withdraw the request to the Board to reduce capital expenditure on distribution to which reference was made in the House by his predecessor on 10th July, 1956.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The present restrictions on the Board's total capital expenditure do not specify separate amounts for expenditure on distribution. They were fixed in relation to the total amount of capital investment that the country can afford and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to withdraw them.

Sir D. Robertson: Is not it amazing that the country can afford excess expenditure of £60 million and £70 million on generation while my constituents and

others in the Highlands are unable to get that to which they are entitled under an Act passed by this House—electricity connections—and that the Board should be able to take advantage of a request made under the credit squeeze policy to avoid expensive connections?

Mr. Macpherson: My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that the Board intends to spend rather more in the current year than it did in the past year.

Mr. John MacLeod: Can my hon. Friend ask the Board to arrange some programme when various people will be likely to get electricity connection in the more remote areas, as at present it appears that many of them will have to wait for many years?

Mr. Macpherson: No doubt the Board will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Forth Road Bridge

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a firm decision has yet been taken as to how many lines of traffic the Forth road bridge will carry abreast.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. Two 24 ft. carriageways each capable of carrying two lines of traffic will be provided. There will also be two 9 ft. cycle tracks and two 6 ft. footpaths.

Diligence

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the delay in remedying the state of diligence in Caithness and Sutherland which has been under active consideration by the Lord Advocate and at least two Committees since November, 1953.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As my hon. Friends knows, the problems to which he alludes are not confined to Caithness and Sutherland. In 1956, my right hon. Friend's predecessor appointed a Committee to undertake a complete review of the law and practice of diligence. My right hon. Friend understands that the Committee has made good progress and he hopes to receive its Report within the next few months.

Sir D. Robertson: Is not this delay of nearly five years bringing the law of Scotland into complete disrepute? Is my


hon. Friend aware that in the Highlands of Scotland creditors are unable to sue for money owing to them, that the Queen's Writ does not run in the Highlands, entirely due to the unreasonable delay of nearly five years? What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect the Secretary of State to take action just at the moment when a Report is about to be received.

Rent Act, 1957

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedure he will adopt to ascertain whether his warning to landlords is effective; and what measures he will adopt if it fails.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): As my right hon. Friend has already indicated, he will continue to watch the position closely, but he does not propose to add at this stage to what he said in the debate on 3rd March.

Mrs. Mann: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of doing anything and that if he had had, he would have done so before the Kelvin-grove by-election? Are not his statements mere propaganda? If he is to watch anything closely, is not it the evictions which he intends to watch?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend has no power to call for returns on what is essentially a matter between the landlord and the tenant. I cannot add to what he said in the debate.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Joint Under-Secretary say what powers the Secretary of State has to take action to deal with problems arising from the Rent Act, without new legislation?

Mr. Browne: That is an entirely different question, but I remind the hon. Member that if he and the Labour Party are sincere and really believe that there will be trouble, they should withdraw their threat to nationalise homes and to pay inadequate compensation for them.

Mr. Ede: That is a promise, not a threat.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of hardship to tenants particularly aged people contained in new agreements made under the Rent Act, 1957; and if he will set up a tribunal to deal with cases of hardship and evictions.

Mr. J. N. Browne: A new tenancy agreement of a decontrolled house is a matter of negotiation between landlord and tenant, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear on several occasions that he looks to landlords to act reasonably.

Mrs. Mann: If a landlord refuses to negotiate—and many are refusing to negotiate—will the Secretary of State intervene at that stage to prevent old people being evicted? Would not it be a very small request that he should establish a tribunal just to deal with urgent cases?

Mr. Browne: This matter was very fully debated and the Government made their position quite clear in what my right hon. Friend said on 3rd March. After very careful examination, it is my view that if there is hardship and if there are evictions the Labour Party, with its nationalisation proposals, will be largely responsible.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the Under-Secretary appreciate the inconsistency of what he is saying? He says that the Labour Party promise to municipalise houses is causing houses to be sold, while his right hon. Friend says that they are not being sold, but relet. Does not he see the inconsistency?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend has corrected the figure to 25 per cent. not relet, but that is still a very high percentage. It was not a promise, it was a threat.

Mr. Ross: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that it is not very much use placing reliance on the reasonableness of a set of people who even supplied the Secretary of State with quite wrong figures, which he took no opportunity to verify, and which may be even more wrong than he has admitted?

Mr. Browne: That is another question and my right hon. Friend has quite properly made a statement on that.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the protests he has received from the tenants at Merrick Gardens, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Govan, in regard to the operation of the Rent Act, 1957; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend had last week a letter from one tenant who has entered into an agreement with his landlord but regards the new rent as excessive. The reply sent by his Department drew attention to recent Government statements on the working of the Rent Act but indicaed that my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in an agreement between landlord and tenant. My right hon. Friend also had a letter from another tenant in November containing a protest in general terms not calling for a reply.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State fully aware of the nature of the increase which has been imposed on this tenant; that, prior to the Rent Act, she was paying £40 a year including rates, and that she is now faced with the payment of £191 including rates? Does he regard that as reasonable, and does he realise that there were no negotiations here whatsoever, but that this was imposed, not only upon this tenant, but upon every single tenant in the area which I have indicated?

Mr. Browne: I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he would expect me to comment on an individual case without full investigation. My right hon. Friend looks to landlords to act with humanity and intelligence.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the Minister clear up some of the confusion on this matter? At one time, the Government are saying that they intend to do something to prevent landlords from abusing their powers, but the next time we have a Minister making a declaration that they do not intend to alter the terms of the Act. Under what powers can they interfere with landlords once they have given them power to take this inhumane action?

Mr. Browne: I am not at all sure that that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's Question, but the answer is contained in

columns 861 and 862 of HANSARD of 3rd March, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a statement.

Houses (Reletting)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far the 3,267 houses which were relet during a specified period last year included council houses, exchanges of tenancies, and transfer of tenancies obligatory under the Acts.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): This figure, which I quoted in the debate on 3rd March as a sample of the houses decontrolled under Section 11 (2) of the Rent Act, 1957, does not include council houses or transmissions of tenancies by succession under the Rent Acts. I regret that the related figure, which I quoted at the same time, of the number of houses becoming vacant, which was supplied to me by the Glasgow Property Owners and Factors Association, should have been 4,310 instead of 3,310; this makes the percentage of houses relet in this sample 75 per cent. instead of 98 per cent. This mistake was brought to my notice by the Association yesterday evening, and I have taken this first opportunity to ask the House to accept my apologies.

Mrs. Mann: Does not that indicate how wrong it is for the Secretary of State to place any reliance whatever on the property owners of Glasgow, on either their promises or on the figures they submit? Could not any man in the streets of Glasgow have told him that 98 per cent. was a fantastic figure?

Mr. Maclay: I remind the hon. Lady that I emphasised very clearly at the time that this was a sample and did not represent the figures for the whole of Glasgow. I have pointed out that as soon as the Property Owners Association realised that a mistake had been made, it got in touch with me; and I have informed the House at the first opportunity.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State sure that the property owners are not misleading him on this question? How many houses which were free to be sold have been relet and how many were transferred to other tenants by obligation?

Mr. Maclay: No, I think not. The Answer I gave was very carefully examined. The figures did not include council houses or transmissions of tenancies by succession under the Rent Acts, which is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Probation Officers (New Salary Scales)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why there has been such delay in preparing the Statutory Instrument embodying probation rules to authorise new salary scales agreed upon by the Probation Officers' Committee of the Scottish Joint Industrial Council on 25th October, 1957.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend made these Rules on 27th February, bringing the new scales into effect as from 1st July, 1957. The delay arose mainly because on 15th November the Negotiating Committee added a recommendation about scales for senior probation officers, and the application of these scales to women proved difficult.

Mr. Steele: Why is there always this delay when dealing with Scottish probation officers, when the English Minister can always deal rapidly with probation officers in England? Can the hon. Gentleman give the date from which the new scales will operate and can he say whether the delay will have any effect on retrospective payment?

Mr. Macpherson: I cannot answer for previous occasions. I cannot affirm or deny that there has been delay in the past. I can only give, as I have given, the reason on this occasion. The Scottish basic scales back-date to 1st July and the senior officers' scales to 1st March.

Jetties and Vehicular Ferry Service, Harris

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what request he has received from Inverness County Council for financial assistance for the construction of jetties and the provision of a vehicular ferry service between Kyles Scalpay and the Isle of Scalpay in Harris; and what reply he has made.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): No such request has been received.

Mr. MacMillan: Would not the Joint Under-Secretary give a little prompting to the county council, in view of the fact that the service is desperately needed in the islands, that young people are drifting away and that this provision of a vehicular ferry service would quite revolutionise the whole system of transport between the islands, which is now highly inconvenient and very costly to everybody concerned?

Lord John Hope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will have been noted.

Fishing Industry, Barra and Eriskay

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Herring Industry Board is taking to develop herring processing in the Isle of Barra; what financial aid is being given by his Department towards the cost of construction of a pier at the north end of the island and in Eriskay; and what other measures he is taking to revive the fishing industry in the two islands.

Lord John Hope: The Board has taken no steps because it does not consider that a processing plant on Barra could be economic.
No financial aid for either pier and no special measures with regard to the fishing industry are contemplated at present.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a pretty deplorable record for any Department to have to publish? Is he aware that there is no manufacturing industry on the island, that there is no regular insurable employment, and that there is only small-scale crofting, which provides no livelihood for the men concerned, who have to go to the ends of the earth in the Merchant Navy in order to get jobs at all? Cannot he take some sort of action and initiative, as one of the proprietors in this area, to promote a revival of this industry which fits naturally into the way of life of the area

Lord John Hope: Nobody can gainsay the economic facts of life on the island as they exist. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we should be very


glad to see more advantage taken by the Barra fishermen of the facilities at Oban for storing and marketing lobsters under the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.

Mr. MacMillan: The question relates mainly to herring fishing, and the Herring Industry Board has a responsibility here for which the hon. Gentleman is answerable in this House. Will he approach the Board and ask it to reconsider the whole question of reviving the fishing industry in Barra, in view of the fact that the Herring Industry Board has been complaining of the shortage of herring to meet the requirements of the market?

Lord John Hope: The important fact about herring, as far as Barra is concerned, is that they are not now found where they used to be.

Robert Burns (Bi-centenary Celebrations)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage visitors to come to Scotland in connection with the celebrations for the bi-centenary of Robert Burns.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Tourism is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeps in very close touch with him and with the Scottish Tourist Board, which intends to give the celebrations of the bi-centenary all possible publicity.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the best possible publicity that he could give to this celebration would be to help us to get a Burns stamp? Is he aware that millions of letters will be going out from Scotland to all parts of the world between now and 25th January next year, and that that would be the best way of drawing attention to it? Will he, as the hon. Member who represents Dumfries, where Burns is buried, impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and the reactionary Postmaster-General the need for doing something in this way?

Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for the Postmaster-General, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will take steps to impress it upon him himself.

Sir T. Moore: Adverting to the Question on the Order Paper, would my hon. Friend also inform these visitors that they will receive a warm welcome from the hon. Member for Ayr, in whose constituency this unique poet was born?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, and also in the constituency in which this unique poet died.

Road Construction Schemes, Western Isles

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what road construction schemes are now proceeding with financial aid from his Department in the islands of Barra, North and South Uist, Harris, and Lewis, respectively; and what reply he has made to Ross and Cromarty County Council's most recent request for grant-aid for the construction of the Tolsta-Ness road in the Isle of Lewis.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information requested in the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend has received no request for financial assistance for the construction of a road between Tolsta and Ness, but he informed the County Council of Ross and Cromarty in July last that he did not think that the inclusion of such a road in its development plan would be justified.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the islands there are over 2,000 people unemployed, mostly men, and that the figure now stands at about 33 per cent., which is several times the next highest in Scotland? Is not it a fact that if construction could now proceed on some of these schemes, it would give employment to a considerable number of people in the islands? Why does not the hon. Gentleman take the initiative in this matter instead of waiting for a backward county council to do it? In reference to the second part of the Answer, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the construction of this road would open up some of the best land in the area for land settlement, would open up the tourist industry,


would be a great economy in transport and improve employment in the whole area? Will he take the initiative himself in view of the difficult situation in regard to unemployment?

Island
Scheme
Cost
Grant
Comment




£
Per cent.



Barra
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil.


South Uist
A.865—Reconstruction of 6 bridges
16,000
100
Highway grant—crofter county scheme.



Uskavagh Road
43,000
75
Township road grant.


North Uist
A.865—Construction of North Ford Causeway
452,000
90
75 per cent, highway grant, 15 per cent, township road grant.



Newton ferry access road
8,500
75
Township road grant.



Lochportain township roads
25,000
100
Estate responsibility of Secretary of State,


Harris
A.859 and A.868—Reconstruction and resurfacing of Tarbert pier road.
32,000
100
Highway grant—crofter county scheme.



Scalpay roads
42,000
75
Township road grant.



Quidinish roads
23,000
75
Township road grant.


Lewis
B.895—Gress bridge
5,600
60
Highway grant.



A.857/B.8027 junction improvement
3,400
75
Highway grant.



West Cromore road
1,600
85
Township road grant.



Carloway-Garenin road
4,100
85
Township road grant.



Adabrock road
2,500
75
Township road grant.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Restrictive Trade Practices Act

Mr. Leavey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the progress of his Department in carrying out the responsibilities laid upon it by the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Board of Trade has now called up for registration all the restrictive agreements covered by the Act. Directions have been issued to the Registrar to bring before the court about 200 registered agreements; another direction will be issued shortly.

Mr. Leavey: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him if he is aware that whereas the mere arrival of this important Act on the Statute Book undoubtedly did have a most useful effect in loosening up some of these agreements and arrangements, none the less there is a general feeling that the Act has lost some of its

Mr. Macpherson: The answer to both those supplementary questions is the same—the initiative rests with the county council in these matters.

The following is the information:

impetus and significance because of these delays; and whether he feels that anything could or should be done at this stage to re-impress upon the general public and those most intimately concerned the significance of this Act, so that it is not lost or overlaid by these delays?

Mr. Erroll: I think those concerned realise how significant and important the Act is. Of the 200 registered agreements to which I have referred, no fewer than 21 have been withdrawn rather than be proceeded with.

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member's request very reasonable? As, nearly two years after the passing of the Act, no case has come before the court at all, is not the Board of Trade in danger of bringing this Act into complete disrepute?

Mr. Erroll: No, I do not think so.

Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware that one of the consequences of the passing of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act has been a growth in amalgamations designed to avoid the provisions of the Act, and will the President of the Board of Trade


refer that subject to the Monopolies Commission for a general inquiry?

Mr. Erroll: It would not be practicable to refer such amalgamations to the Monopolies Commission if they do not constitute monopolies within the terms of the Act.

Printed Cotton Textiles

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the decision of the Australian Government to ban imports of printed cotton textiles; and what representations he has made to the Australian Government as to the effect this decision will have on the British textile industry;
(2) what representations he has received from the cotton textile industry about the decision of the Australian Government to ban imports of printed cotton textiles.

Mr. Erroll: As hon. Members may have seen, the Australian Minister for Trade has announced that licensing of printed cotton piecegoods will be resumed on 1st April. My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Cotton Board and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in respect of orders which may have been frustrated by the temporary suspension of licensing and our Senior Trade Commissioner in Canberra has been asked to pursue this question with the Australian authorities.

Baths (Imports from Hungary)

Mr. Barter: asked the President of the Board of Trade, his intentions with regard to the authorisation of a supplementary quota for the twelve months' period ending 26th June, 1958, for the importation of baths from Hungary.

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry that I cannot disclose details of this kind while the negotiations are still in progress; but my hon. Friend may be assured that full weight will be given to the representations which have been made to us by this industry.

Mr. Barter: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to the fact that there is considerable capacity for United Kingdom manufacturers and to the need for consultation with British industry?

Mr. Erroll: We give full weight to the representations made by industry but, while there may be sufficient capacity, imports at the present level of about £35,000, in 1957, are quite insignificant compared with the domestic production of £7 million.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this industry, particularly in my constituency, is part of the ironfounding industry which is working short-time and has been for years? Will he consult the industry about any steps of this sort?

Mr. Storey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Borough of Barking is specifying Hungarian baths for the houses which it is building? Is he aware that in my constituency there is a firm which would be only too pleased to manufacture these baths and will he consult the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about what steps can be taken to restrain local authorities which are building subsidised houses from preventing British firms from tendering for fittings?

Mr. Erroll: That is an important point. There is a later Question on the Order Paper addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

Shopper's Guide

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the publication, the Shopper's Guide, is a quarterly periodical with a subscription of 10s. per annum which is not in immediate supply at either stationers' shops or bookstalls; and, in view of the subsidy which he is paying towards this periodical, what information he possesses concerning the number of its circulation and its methods of distribution, and the extent to which this publication is used as a guide by the average shopper.

Mr. Erroll: The special Government grant of £10,000 to the British Standards Institution is a contribution towards its general work for the domestic consumer and is not specifically for Shopper's Guide. I understand that about 23,000 copies are distributed to subscribers to the associate scheme of the Consumer Advisory Council of the Institution.

Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that when his right hon. Friend answered a Question a few weeks ago it was


specifically stated that part of the subsidy was for the Shopper's Guide? Is he aware that when I endeavoured to obtain a copy of this periodical from my stationers, I found it was not available? Cannot he insist on a better distribution in return for the subsidy which is being paid?

Mr. Erroll: The method of distribution is, quite properly, decided by the Consumer Advisory Council. The advantages of this method are that distribution is very cheap and efficient.

British Motor Trades Association (Agreement)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the Registrar of Restrictive Practices to bring the Restrictive Practices Court immediately the distribution scheme agreement of the British Motor Trade Association.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend will very shortly issue a third direction to the Registrar about cases to be taken before the court and he will deal with this matter then.

Mr. Jay: Is not it urgent to get a decision on this agreement. If it is legal under the Act for manufacturers collectively compulsorily to raise a levy for enforcing higher prices, surely the Act means almost nothing at all?

Mr. Erroll: I asked the right hon. Gentleman to wait a few days until he sees the third direction.

Mr. Lindgren: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that garages in various parts of the country are becoming as much "tied" as licensed premises and that something should be done if the convenience of motorists who desire to purchase proprietary goods is to be served?

Mr. Erroll: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I ask him to wait a few days until he sees the third direction.

Flick Knives

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that young people within school ages have occasion to use flick knives for employment or industrial purposes; whether he is aware that a boy aged 13 years recently

pressed a flick knife against the clothing of another boy near the region of his heart, and stabbed a 13-year-old girl in Leicester; and whether he will now prevent the importation of these knives

Mr. Erroll: We have no such evidence. The answer to the other parts of the Question is in each case "No, Sir."

Mr. Janner: If the Board has no such evidence, why are not steps taken to prevent these knives getting into the hands of youngsters? Is not the President of the Board of Trade yet aware that there is concern about this? The Leicester Mercury, which has made a careful and close study of the matter, and other papers indicate that there is this grave concern. If the President of the Board of Trade has advised the trade not to sell them, there must be some reason. Does he propose to allow further assaults and perhaps murders to be committed with those instruments without doing something?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said in the House that traders have responded well to the appeals to confine the sale of flick knives to persons known to have a legitimate use for them.

Butter

Mr. Temple: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the recent application to his Department by the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Boards for the imposition under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, for an anti-dumping duty on imports into the United Kingdom of butter originating in Sweden, Finland, Austria and the Irish Republic.

Mr. Erroll: This application is still under consideration, and I cannot make any statement about it at present.

Mr. Temple: Is not the Minister aware that the spring flush will shortly be with us and any action which is to be effective this year must be taken speedily?

Mr. Erroll: We fully appreciate the need for speed in this important matter, but there are a number of considerations which we must take into account before arriving at a decision.

World Trade

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage proportions of world trade were the United Kingdom's shares in 1951 and 1957, respectively; and what was the highest figure for the United Kingdom's share after 1951.

Mr. Erroll: The United Kingdom's share of total world imports and exports—excluding Eastern Europe, U.S.S.R. and China—was 11·7 per cent. in 1951 and 10·3 per cent. in the first nine months of 1957. The highest figure for the United Kingdom share after 1951 was 11·3 per cent. in 1952.

Mr. Cronin: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the steady decline in Britain's share of world trade since his party took office is a source of dismay and apprehension to everyone concerned? What does the Government intend to do to remedy the situation?

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Gentleman should remember that total world trade has gone up and he should not be deluded by percentages.

Trade with Mexico

Commander Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve trade between the United Kingdom and Mexico.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend since his return has taken the opportunity on a number of occasions to make known to industrialists the opportunities which exist in the Mexican market in the hope that they will follow up his own visit. The services of the Board of Trade and of our Embassy in Mexico are at the disposal of those who contemplate entering this market. In addition, Her Majesty's Government are inviting a number of important Mexicans to visit the United Kingdom so that they can be in no doubt of our ability to meet their requirements.

Commander Maitland: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that British bankers are taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by trade with Mexico?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to look into that point.

Commander Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate the value of exports from the United Kingdom to Mexico and the value of the imports from that country during the last three years to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Erroll: The figures are published in Account No. 4—page 347—of the "Accounts Relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December, 1957, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend.

Monopolies Commission

Mr. Prentice: asked the President of the Board of Trade why his Department referred only two new matters to the Monopolies Commission in 1957 and referred nothing to it during the second half of the year; and whether he will make a statement of Government policy on the future employment of the Commission.

Mr. Erroll: The references made to the Commission in 1957 were those which in the Board's view were required by the public interest; the Board will continue this policy. With the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act the scope for making such references has been reduced.

Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for many months raw material prices have been falling, without any corresponding benefit to the consumer? Is not this a situation in which attacks on monopolies should be stepped up and not slowed down?

Mr. Erroll: While raw material prices have fallen, certain other costs have risen.

North-East Coast Development Area

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that he does not intend to de-schedule the North-East Coast Development Area under the Distribution of Industry Acts.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. The Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, made specific provision for de-scheduling and I cannot give an assurance, whether in regard to this Area or any other, that my right hon. Friend will not make any proposals to Parliament for such action.

Mr. Jay: Will not that Answer cause a lot of anxiety in these cases? Would not the present moment, when the shipbuilding outlook is more uncertain than at any time since the war, be an unwise time for any action?

Mr. Erroll: My Answer should not give apprehension to those Development Areas which are now enjoying unprecedented popularity.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that unemployment is increasing through, out the whole of the North-East and that there is great apprehension at present about possible unemployment even in the mining industry, apart from shipbuilding and other industries? Further, is he aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, subscribed to by nearly all the hon. Members for North-Eastern constituencies, asking the Government to give urgent attention to this matter?

[That, in the opinion of this House, to de-schedule the whole or part of the North East Development Area would he prejudicial to the continuing diversification of industry in that area; and that so long as a large proportion of the working population are employed in a small number of basic industries, employment in the area will remain dangerously vulnerable.]

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend was putting forward the suggestion, which he said needed careful consideration. In that consideration he intends to be guided by the terms of the Motion tabled by hon. Members.

Mr. Popplewell: Does not the Minister realise that the statement made the other week by the Minister has created grave apprehension and that the statement now made by the Parliamentary Secretary will accentuate that apprehension in the North-East? Does he realise that several ships are now laid up on the Tyne, that many of the light industries that have gone to the Tyneside are now working short time and that in the engineering industry in particular several people have been paid off because there is no available work in their industry on the Tyneside? Cannot the Minister again give the assurance for which we are asking?

Mr. Erroll: This statement, or suggestion as it was, has undoubtedly given

hope to those unfortunates who are unemployed outside Development Areas.

Mr. Jay: If the Minister really doubts that there is anxiety in the area, will he go there and see the people for himself'?

Mr. Erroll: Yes. I shall be very glad to do so when I get a suitable opportunity.

Pharmaceutical Preparations

Colonel Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many commodities and groups of commodities produced in the United Kingdom are listed in the wholesale price index, published monthly in the Board of Trade Journal; what has been the average percentage increase in price, counting 30th June, 1949, as 100; and what has been the rise in the price index of drugs and pharmaceutical preparations.

Mr. Erroll: Index numbers for 114 commodities and groups of commodities produced in the United Kingdom are listed in the latest monthly article on wholesale prices in the Board of Trade Journal. The price index for all manufactured products—other than fuel, food and tobacco—was 41·6 per cent. higher for January, 1958, than at 30th June, 1949. The index for drugs and pharmaceuticals has risen by 6·6 per cent. over the same period.

Colonel Beamish: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that had the pharmaceutical industry not been so strikingly successful in keeping down wholesale prices in the last decade the annual drug bill would be many millions of pounds higher?

Colonel Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table showing the annual value of exports of proprietary pharmaceutical preparations since 1948.

Mr. Erroll: Precise statistics are not available, but I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Trade and Navigation Accounts which give the statistics for the total of all drugs, medicines and medicinal preparations, and for the total of those classified as "proprietary medicines, not elsewhere specified", which are thought to include the bulk of proprietary preparations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Mr. Cronin: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to relieve the Paymaster-General of some of his burdens, having regard to the circumstance that he is continuously occupied to a major extent with matters appertaining to the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Power.

Mr. Mulley: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he proposes to make to fill the vacancy of Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the increasing and necessary absences of the Paymaster-General from the House and the increasing volume of financial business.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The present arrangements are working well and are, I believe, to the advantage of this House. I am not at present, therefore, proposing that an appointment should be made to the office of Economic Secretary to the Treasury. But arrangements of this sort have to be kept under constant review and an appointment can be made at any time if the need should arise.

Mr. Cronin: Are not the multitudinous preoccupations of the Paymaster-General likely to prejudice the success of the European Free Trade Area negotiations, having regard to the fact that those negotiations are proceeding rather badly for the United Kingdom as it is?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the Paymaster-General has managed this affair with extreme skill and with the general approval of his colleagues in all countries. It is an advantage that in this matter he should be so closely connected with the Treasury. He has been able to carry out his other duties to the general advantage of the House.

Mr. Mulley: While appreciating the work done by the Paymaster-General in connection with the Free Trade Area, may I ask whether the Prime Minister does not think that it would be of more advantage if the Paymaster-General did not have to concern himself with routine Treasury matters? May I, further, ask whether the reluctance to appoint an Economic Secretary is due to lack of suitable candidates on the Government side of the House or to the fact that the

Prime Minister is afraid that such a candidate might lead to another batch of Treasury resignations?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member misunderstands the working of the Treasury system. The Economic Secretary does not deal with routine matters, which are dealt with by the Financial Secretary. He deals with the larger questions of economic policy, with which this matter of the Free Trade Area is very closely allied.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. D. Howell: asked the Prime Minister if he will now review the work of co-ordinating public relations at present carried out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with a view to ensuring that the present system is the best and most economical.

The Prime Minister: I keep all these arrangements under review. I am, however, satisfied that at the present time the existing arrangements for the coordination of information services are effective and economical.

Mr. Howell: Can the Prime Minister give the House any examples of the successful co-ordination of public relations carried out under the personal direction of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to justify his existence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The whole structure has been much improved and is working very much better than it was before.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Prime Minister ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to look into the question of the Chief Information Officer of the Treasury appearing on television—commercial television, as it happens—with a view to expounding certain facts of an economic character? Will he consider whether it is desirable for information officers in the public service to appear on television any more than that they should give first-person interviews to the Press? Will he take account of the fact that this is a new, and as I think an undesirable, departure in the use of public information officers?

The Prime Minister: This matter had already been called to my attention and I am looking into it. I do not think it is so much a matter of the Chancellor of the Duchy as a matter of general policy for which I am responsible, and of what are to be the Treasury Minutes guiding the duties of civil servants. I am looking into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made towards his declared objective of a Summit Conference.

Mr. Mellish: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the present position of the negotiations for a Summit Conference.

The Prime Minister: Considerable progress has been made. But I would point out that a Summit Conference is not an end in itself. The end which we pursue is agreement. As hon. Members will know, there has been a recent further exchange of correspondence between the Soviet and United States Governments. The purpose of this correspondence is to try to reach agreement on the conditions under which preparations for a Summit Conference should take place—what President Eisenhower has called
really decent preparation that would appeal to reasonable men".
I am anxious that preparations should start soon, but until certain basic issues in the Soviet position have been clarified, namely, on the Soviet attitude towards the composition of the agenda and towards the purpose of the preparatory talks, this is unfortunately not possible.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the interest of the public in this matter is equalled only by its mystification as to what is happening? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, is it a fact that the preparatory discussions concerning the Summit Conference are by-passing the United Kingdom at present and taking place between Washington and Moscow, and if so, why? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, for our part, we shall not insist as a prior requisite that there should be agreement on the reunification of Germany?

The Prime Minister: On the first supplementary question, leaving out the preliminary trimmings to which no doubt the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reply, there has, of course, been a large number of communications by the Soviet Government to such a large number of countries that the correspondence has become somewhat complicated. What we are trying to do is always to consult each other in the alliance, and I am trying to keep the Commonwealth fully informed before answering the particular communications that happen to be addressed to us. I agree that nothing would be more desirable than if we could get further clarification and positive results. I have made my position clear both in this House and outside.
The second supplementary question helps me to clear up a point which is important. It is a very important matter and in doubt. We have never asked that there should be agreement on any question before it is included in the agenda. We have said that if we are to make an agenda likely to lead to an ultimate agreement it is wise that the items should at least be discussed and agreement reached to see which ones seem the most hopeful and which ones can lead only to a general discusssion. We have never made any agreement that in any prior discussion there should be agreement, but only preparation likely to lead to a good conference.

Mr. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman any even approximate idea of the timetable—or is it intended to have the Summit Conference when the West is in the lowest reaches of a trade slump?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that question is very relevant to the one to which it was a supplementary.

Mr. Bevan: The original Question was
To ask the Prime Minister what progress he has made towards his declared objective of a Summit Conference.
I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had formed even an approximate idea of the timetable.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has not been fair to himself. He has not restated what he said. The purpose of his supplementary question was to drag in this matter of the economic situation. I would regard this as a


political matter which ought to be proceeded with as soon as possible without regard to the economic situation.

Mr. Fell: In view of the initiative which was taken by a former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), will the Prime Minister consider relieving the Foreign Offices—which perhaps have not got the complete confidence of the people in every country concerned—from the burden of deciding on the agenda and have a conference between himself, President Eisenhower and whoever is to represent the Soviet Union, initially without any agenda, to try to come to some agreement, without any agenda, and to try to formulate their ideas and tell their Foreign Offices what to put on the agenda?

The Prime Minister: I would of course consider that, but I should not have thought that a Summit Conference of three, four, or whatever is to be the number of participants to try to fix an agenda would be a good way of proceeding. There are tragic precedents in this matter.

Mr. Mellish: Last week, in an exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, there was some doubt about Russian proposals for a conference of Foreign Secretaries. It was stated that a Note had been received from Russia saying that Russia was prepared to have a meeting of Foreign Secretaries to discuss the question. My right hon. Friend asked whether, if a Question was put on the subject, it could be answered? May I ask where we have got from that?

The Prime Minister: There were really two questions and I want to be quite frank about them. These are very important matters in which there is great public interest and in which I personally take the deepest possible interest. One question is, what should be the machinery? Whether it is a case of ambassadors starting discussions and Foreign Secretaries going on with them, or of the Foreign Ministers doing the whole thing without previous ambassadorial discussion, I do not think is very important. Either form of machinery would suit us if we could make progress. The real point is whether the meeting is to be limited to fixing the time and date. There is, perhaps, the question of composition, which is important. Having an

agenda, not selected with the purpose I have in mind, but by writing down everything one can think of on a bit of paper and perhaps each side trying to veto the other—I do not call that a real meeting. What we want to do in that form of meeting, whether it is of ambassadors or Foreign Secretaries, or both, is to get some work done which will make the work of the Conference, when it meets, have a good chance, a reasonable chance, of achieving something.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would the Prime Minister agree that some of these basic matters, which apparently are holding up preparation for the Conference, might be discussed through diplomatic channels rather than by public correspondence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is always the difficulty. It is one we find in our own affairs. When someone writes a letter, who is to write the reply? There has been a great interchange of letters and at no stage has it been possible to stop the letter writing, but I observed that the President himself expressed the view that some more rapid system could be devised.

Mr. Grimond: When the Prime Minister said earlier that we were not insisting on agreement about an agenda, by "we" was he referring to the West as a whole or to Her Majesty's Government? Will he make it clear whether there is any discrepancy between the American attitude and ours, that urgent steps are being taken to clear it up, even to the extent of going to Washington itself?

The Prime Minister: When I said "we" I meant that we have to consult all the countries of N.A.T.O. which are involved. Those who perhaps will not be directly represented at the summit meeting have an almost greater right to be consulted. This is a process in which we try to reach an approximate view, but I should have thought on the main principle that the character of the preparations should be such as to make a fruitful conference. On that we are all agreed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE POLICY

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken within the last fortnight to arrange that talks shall take place between him and the


Opposition from time to time on defence matters, with a view to forming a national bi-partisan policy on this matter.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir; but I would wish to keep the possibility in mind. Indeed, I should give most sympathetic consideration to any approach which the Leader of the Opposition might wish to make.

Sir J. Duncan: Arising out of that reply, and while recognising that the time may not be appropriate, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will take advantage of any approach that may be made, as many of us were very impressed by the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in the defence debate a fortnight ago?

The Prime Minister: I also was very much impressed, but these are matters on which—perhaps I might be allowed to say this, very sincerely—there are tremendous disagreements in some parts of the House. I should have thought there was a great deal more agreement between the two sides than sometimes people think. I thought that as a result of the defence debate a fairly wide measure of agreement, on some propositions at any rate, was reached. If I can be of any service in making that sense of national agreement greater, of course it must strengthen our position as a country.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that, speaking personally, I do not suggest it is possible in the present state of feeling on defence matters to obtain a bi-partisan policy? I think that is not realism at present, but nevertheless, would not it be useful from the standpoint of hon. Members in all parts of the House if the Minister of Defence from time to time asked a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House interested in defence projects to come to talk with him, without impinging on security, so that they might know the facts about defence, although of course decisions about defence must obviously be left to the Government? Is not that possible?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly sympathetically convey that to my right hon. Friend. In regard to the original

Question, I think I remember such discussions in the Parliament of 1945. I think they arose on the initiative of the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill).

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Prime Minister recollect that some years before the war certain Members of Parliament belonged to the Committee on Imperial Defence, or appeared before that body from time to time? Might not that be one way of resuscitating the desire which is evident on both sides of the House, not for a bi-partisan approach, but for collaboration in defence matters?

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a somewhat different question. It is true that Lord Balfour, who was one of those who originated the idea of the Committee on Imperial Defence, was invited in 1916, although he was out of office, to remain a member of it. That is not the operating structure, but the principle remains. I am sure all wish to try to concentrate on the highest common factor of agreement, which is to our national interest, rather than always to concentrate on the points on which we disagree, leaving out, of course, a certain amount of agreement which takes a wholly different philosophical approach to the whole problem.

Mr. McAdden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if in this House we can prove by application of a study of these problems that we can arrive at an agreement to defend ourselves, that might hold out greater hopes of reaching an agreement on a Summit Conference to consider how we might defend the world?

The Prime Minister: That certainly is by no means to be neglected.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOMELESS FAMILIES

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister what further action will now be taken to set up an inter-departmental committee to examine the problems arising from homeless families and make recommendations.

The Prime Minister: After consultation with the Ministers concerned, I have come to the conclusion that what is needed is an effort to improve existing arrangements rather than an inquiry by


an inter-departmental committee. My right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Health are considering how best this may be achieved and propose to have discussions with the local authority associations.

Mr. Lipton: While regretting that this idea, which was put forward a month ago, has been turned down, may I ask the Prime Minister—who has the reputation of being a good family man—to spare a thought for many families facing eviction next October? Also, as a contribution to a better atmosphere, will he disown a disgraceful Tory pamphlet, issued by the Central Office, which said that we on this side of the House want to see the old people thrown on to the streets?

The Prime Minister: That is quite a different problem than that in the Question, originally asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), to which the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has again called attention. As I pointed out, the Committee, I think, did some useful work on a particular aspect of this problem when I was Minister of Housing and Local Government. A great deal of work has been done on different aspects. There is the problem of people who are very difficult to look after in one way or another. I am informed and believe that still to be the case, but another Committee would not help us. What we had better do is to see how far we can get by collaboration with all those concerned in carrying out the recommendations of this Committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May we take it from the reply of the Prime Minister that his attention has not been called to the pamphlet in which these charges were made against the Opposition? Will he take a look at it and disown it as soon as he can?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that arises on this Question; it is quite a different topic.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to the power of the courts to order payment of interest on damages.
Under the present law in Scotland, interest on damages runs automatically at a rate of 5 per cent. from the date of the decree decerning for payment of damages. This decree is distinct from the fixing of damages which, in a jury case, may occur some time before the date of the decree. If asked, the court may back-date the interest, but there has been no case in which it has been backdated to a date earlier than the date on which the amount of damages was fixed. This is because, as the law in Scotland now stands, the general rule is that interest runs only on a "liquid" debt, and damages do not become liquid until they are fixed. The Law Reform Committee for Scotland was asked to consider this position and, in its Third Report, recommended that powers be given to the courts to award interest from the date of citation.
In making this recommendation, the Law Reform Committee had in mind the theoretical consideration that when the court makes an award of damages it decides, in effect, that the defender should have admitted the claim when it was made, and that he should have then have paid the appropriate damages. But it felt that a more important reason for making the change was that it would remove the interest which a defender at present generally has in delaying proceedings. It also pointed out that owing to the congestion in Scottish courts, there may be a considerable delay between bringing an action and the ultimate decision. At present, it is common for this period to be between eighteen months and two years.
My proposed Bill is limited solely to bringing about that change recommended by the Law Reform Committee. Its application is limited to Scotland, where the change is generally desired. I trust, therefore, that the House will grant leave for the Bill to be introduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Willis, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Leburn, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Hannan, Commander Donaldson, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, and Mr. Steele.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to the power of the courts to order payment of interest on damages, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rates of national health service contributions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the administrative expenses and other sums so payable under the National Health Service Contributions Act. 1957.

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(HIGHER RATES OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS.)

3.37 p.m.

The Chairman: The Amendment in page 1, line 15, after "substituted" to insert:
subject to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and that to which it is a paver, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
(6) Regulations may provide that in discharge of any increased liability of a person under this section there shall be credited to that person, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the amount of any payments made by that person during the fifty-two contribution weeks immediately preceding the occurrence of the liability being payments made in respect of charges under section one of the National Health Service Act. 1951, or under sections one or two of the National Health Service Act, 1952
are both out of order, as this clause deals only with contributions.

Mr. Frederick Willey: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask for your protection and assistance? The Government have decided that those of us who are members of Standing Committee A, which is considering the Slaughterhouses Bill, will meet at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It so happens that another Standing Committee is also to meet at that hour. As a consequence, 90 hon. Members will be detained in those


Standing Committees. It also happens that, because of the nature of the Bills being discussed in Standing Committee, those hon. Members who are concerned with those Bills are also particularly concerned with the Bill now before this Committee. Is there any way in which you can safeguard the rights of the House as a whole and ensure that those of us particularly interested in this Bill can attend here to join in the debate on it?

The Chairman: There is nothing that I can do about that. Those hon. Members will be allowed to come here and vote in a Division—I have no doubt that the Chairmen of those Standing Committees will then adjourn the Committees—but I have nothing further to say.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. While appreciating your difficulty in ruling on such a matter, surely we could have an expression of opinion that it is an affront to this Committee that such an exceptional number of hon. Members should be prevented from taking part in either one or other of their duties to the House. May I ask whether, to avoid a Division taking place in Standing Committee as well as in this Chamber, we can ensure that there is some staggering of any such Divisions? It is physically impossible for an hon. Member who wishes to take part in a Division in Standing Committee also to take part in a Division of this Committee, should they run concurrently. Can you say that special time will be granted for Divisions on the Floor of this Chamber in order to give full opportunity of voting to hon. Members in Standing Committee.

The Chairman: That is quite beyond me, I am sorry to say.
The next Amendment is that standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), in page 1, line 25. I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if his Amendments in page 2, line 2, to leave out "they apply "and insert "it applies"; in line 8, to leave out "Northern Ireland and"; and in line 17, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line were taken together.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25,

to leave out from "Crown" to "shall" in line 1, page 2.
I agree that this Amendment, Sir Charles, and those that you have indicated, go together. Their effect, if carried, would be to remove from the Bill the references to Northern Ireland. The question that I want to put to the Government and to the Committee is simply whether it is necessary, whether it is desirable, to apply the onerous provisions of the Bill to the most distressed area in the United Kingdom? We ought to examine what would be the effect upon the Northern Ireland economy if the additional charge that is now proposed were to be laid upon the progress of that region.
The Government, in bringing the Bill before the House, justified it on the grounds that the cost of the National Health Service had risen, and must, in equity, be met by laying some of the additional cost on contributors to National Insurance as distinct from taxpayers. The same argument was used when the Act of 1957 was before the House last year. I want to know, and I hope that the Government are prepared to tell us, what happened in 1957. The Act of 1957, by Section 5, provides that
… no limitation or restriction imposed by virtue of any enactment on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall preclude that Parliament from passing legislation for purposes similar to the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act.
In other words, all the 1957 Act did was to permit the Parliament of Northern Ireland, if it thought fit, to raise part of the cost of their Health Service from contributors to National Insurance.
What happened? I do not profess to know, and I should like to know. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health will be in a position to tell the Committee what happened when that Act was passed. Did the Northern Ireland Government avail themselves of these provisions? Did they levy a charge upon contributors to National Insurance in Northern Ireland? If so, why? What was the increase in the cost of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and how did it compare with the increase in cost of the Health Service in England, Wales and Scotland? Were the increases much the same or greater or smaller? Where the additional charges, if any, imposed


on contributors to National Insurance in Northern Ireland proportional to the increases? In short, what did they do about it in every respect?
Next, we want to know whether the costs have gone up since. What has been happening with regard to the National Health Service in Northern Ireland? Are its costs increasing in the same sort of measure as they are here? Have the Northern Ireland Government been able to find a method of economy which makes the rise less? Are they content with a less efficient or satisfactory Service than pleases the people of England, Scotland and Wales? We are entitled, on this Clause, to know what is the situation in Northern Ireland in respect of the treatment of the sick under the three parts of the Health Service.
What is Northern Ireland likely to do now? Have the Northern Ireland Government approached the United Kingdom Government and asked for power to increase what they may have levied upon National Insurance contributors by virtue of the 1957 Act? Are the United Kingdom Government—I hope that they are not—exerting any pressure on the Government of Northern Ireland to do it in this way rather than the other way? What approaches have been made by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Northern Ireland Government?
This Measure, if adopted by Northern Ireland, would have an effect even more injurious there than in England and Wales. Northern Ireland has only one thirty-seventh of the population of the United Kingdom, but it has nearly one tenth of the unemployment in the United Kingdom. Last month, more than 10 per cent. of the workers in Northern Ireland were unemployed. More than 11 per cent. of the registered men workers were signing on at the employment exchanges.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Before the right hon. Gentleman becomes too deeply immersed in these statistical references to employment in Northern Ireland, he should, if he will forgive my saying so, make clear to the Committee what is the basis of the assumption on which he is proceeding. Does he not realise that, except for two narrow categories, the question of legislation in Northern Ireland in this

context is one for the Government of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Parliament and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the House of Commons under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920? I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching his Amendment on a misapprehension of the constitutional relationship.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I do not think that I have any misapprehension at all. Before we say that the provisions of the Bill shall, or may, apply to Northern Ireland, we want to know whether it would he a wise step, whether the conditions in Northern Ireland are such as to justify it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to tell the Committee whether he thinks that, if his Amendments were carried, they would deny to the Northern Ireland Parliament the right of legislating over the general field in respect of an increased National Health Service contribution, if it so desired?

Mr. Marquand: If it be that it would make no difference at all, then I do not understand why it is put in the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the adoption of this Amendment would make no difference whatsoever, and the Northern Ireland Government would still be able to do it, why put it in the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Because, as I shall explain in a few minutes, if I catch your eye, Sir Charles, there are two limited categories only in respect of which they might not be able to legislate but for these clarifying words. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not really think that he is in order in pursuing his observations, except in that limited category.

Mr. James Griffiths: That is for the Chair to say.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will make a submission to the Chair in due course, if that would be of help to the Committee. All I am trying to do at the moment is to assist the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) not to fall further into error than he appears already to be doing.

Mr. Marquand: I had assumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman


had it in mind to address some remarks to the Committee when I have finished what I have to say. I shall be prepared to listen to him with great care, of course, but I should be glad to be allowed to proceed now. No doubt, Sir Charles, you will call me to order if I should commit any breach of order such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.
Are the Government, in putting into the Bill the words which I suggest should be left out, conveying to the Northern Ireland Parliament the opinion that it should legislate in respect of the categories to which the Minister has referred? If that were not so, why put it in the Bill at all? My question still remains: has the Minister indicated to the Government of Northern Ireland that there is need for them to use the powers they have to increase the contributions paid by National Health Service contributors?
The Minister may argue—perhaps he has it in mind to do so—that people who are unemployed, as 10 per cent. of the workers in Northern Ireland are, do not pay contributions, and would not, therefore, be required to pay the increased Health Service contribution provided for here. That is perfectly true. I suggest that the prevalence of a high level of unemployment reduces the annual earnings of the workpeople concerned and makes it a great deal more difficult for them to pay these contributions at such times as they are working and putting stamps on their cards. An increase in Income Tax, I suggest, would not hit these unemployed workers of Northern Ireland when they are in employment anything like so severely as would the proposal in the Bill.
Many of the workers in Northern Ireland are engaged in seasonal industry, and many more work part-time. Under the Bill, part-time workers would be required to pay as large increased contributions as full-time workers, thus militating against the employing of part-time and seasonal workers, making it more expensive for employers to employ them, and, thereby, reducing still further their chances of getting what employment they can at the moment. Already, the people of Northern Ireland are suffering heavily from unemployment. If the Bill

be passed and the Northern Ireland Government choose to exercise the powers conferred by it, unemployment in Northern Ireland will become not better, but worse than it is even in the present difficult situation.
On the whole, families are larger in Northern Ireland than they are in this part of the United Kingdom. In view of the fact that Northern Ireland workers have larger families to maintain out of their wages, subject, as they are, to periodic unemployment, the burden now proposed to be laid upon them would be unfair and unjust.
We ought to say at this point to the Northern Ireland Government, "We think that, on the whole, you ought to stop there. We do not want Northern Ireland to become an even more depressed area than it is at present. We suggest to you that if you do not use the powers available to you to levy charges on National Insurance contributions we would be able to come to your rescue through the general tax fund of the United Kingdom". In that way, the United Kingdom would make an additional contribution towards preventing Northern Ireland from remaining a depressed area—the most depressed area in the whole of the United Kingdom.
This Amendment would have the effect, if carried, of at least helping Northern Ireland by means of the general body of the revenue of the United Kingdom as a whole. It would tend to prevent Northern Ireland from becoming even more depressed than it is now. Reflecting on these matters, I hope that those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland here—whom we are glad to see in the Committee this afternoon—will add their voices to ours and will urge the Minister not to turn a deaf ear or a stony face to the plea that we are making and that they will say to him, "This is a reasonable proposal".
Furthermore, I hope that they will give the Committee the benefit of some of the information which they doubtless possess of the way in which the Health Service is working in Northern Ireland—whether it needs additional help or whether they are satisfied with it as it is. Are they satisfied with the provision for hospitals which exists in Northern Ireland, or do they want to improve it? If they do, in what way do they want it improved?


I hope that the hon. Members from Northern Ireland will contribute to the debate and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do more than make mere debating points.
We are serious about this matter. We care for the welfare of Northern Ireland. We are sorry to see it in the sad plight in which it is. We are sorry to think that while the Government have been in office for the last seven years their plight has not improved, but become worse. We hope by this Amendment that we can do something to help our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Mr. Walker-Smith rose——

Mr. J. Griffiths: Surely the Minister does not wish to deprive us of the opportunity to discuss this matter.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My normal practice is:o wait to hear the speeches of hon. Members before intervening, but on this occasion the speech of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has shown such a gross misapprehension not only of the constitutional position which exists between this country and Northern Ireland, but even of the nature and purport of the Amendment which he was supposed to be explaining, that I think it would be more helpful if I intervened now.
Without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that I have never heard a speech so little related to an Amendment since one of the Ministers in the Labour Government of 1945 read, in reference to an Amendment, the brief which had been carefully prepared by his Department in reference to the succeeding Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. Surely the Minister is referring to the case where his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General read a speech relating to an Amendment different from that before the Committee.

Mr. Griffiths: If we are to have Parliamentary precedents, it is fair to have them on both sides.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My recollection is that it was not the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who did this; it was another of his colleagues. But as the right hon. Gentleman to whom I refer is no longer a Member of this

House, I do not think it would be right to refer to him by name. Therefore, it would perhaps be helpful to the Committee if I reminded hon. Members—although I am sure that the majority of them have no need to be reminded on this important point—of what is the precise constitutional relationship between the Government of Northern Ireland and ourselves in this context.
The Government of Northern Ireland have powers under the Act of 1920 to legislate in Northern Ireland for domestic purposes—such as introducing National Health Service contributions in respect of persons residing in Northern Ireland. That is within their jurisdiction, save only in respect of certain specific categories.

Mr. Griffiths: We made a constitutional change the other day in the 1957 Act in which we instituted a separate National Health Service contribution. Could we be told whether the Northern Ireland Parliament have also made that constitutional change?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. In Northern Ireland the same stamp is being used as we use here. It is endorsed for Northern Ireland purposes, but that is done within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government. It is not for this House to legislate, or even to seek to advise, as the right hon. Gentleman was purporting to do, the Northern Ireland Government in respect of matters which lie within their statutory jurisdiction under the Act of 1920.
However, there are—and this is where the slight complication arises—three specific categories which are excepted from that general jurisdiction. They are these: First, Crown servants; secondly, foreign-going seamen; and, thirdly, persons serving in Her Majesty's forces. There is not and could not be anything in the Bill to compel the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate for increases. Equally, from the constitutional point of view, obviously there is nothing to compel them not to so legislate. That must be so, because these are matters which are constitutionally within the domestic jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament.
The object of the words in the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment seeks to omit is very narrow. It is simply to perm it the Northern Ireland


Government, if they so wish, to legislate in respect of the excepted categories comparably with what we are doing here.
I am asked: what is the intention of the Northern Ireland Government? I understand that it is their intention to introduce legislation providing for the same increases in the National Health Service contribution as are proposed for Great Britain. But it is not for us in this House to seek to inhibit them in their general intention, which is one within their own statutory jurisdiction.
I was asked about the 1957 Act and the relevance and purport of Section 5, which would be omitted from the Bill if the Amendments were carried. Section 5 of the 1957 Act was necessary because, otherwise, Northern Ireland could not have had completely comparable legislation—that is to say, they could not have provided for contributions to be paid by two of the categories I have named, namely, the Crown servants and the foreign-going seamen. So far as the third category, the Armed Forces, is concerned, they have not and never have had the power to legislate for contributions, and the 1957 Act, as hon. Members will see if they will be good enough to look at it, did not give them such power, because that is expressly reserved by Section 5 (2) of that Act. Nor does subsection (3) give them such power.
4.0 p.m.
The Clause makes it clear that the position now is as it was under the 1957 Act. If the Amendment were accepted and the relevant words were left out the position would be in doubt. It might well be that the Government of Northern Ireland could bring in comparable legislation simply by relying upon the provisions of Section 5 of the 1957 Act, without any express words needing to be incorporated in the Bill. That would depend upon the interpretation of the words:
for purposes similar to the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act.
I should like to know the intention of the Amendment. It cannot be what the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is, because his intention goes far wider either than the terms of the Amendment or than would be constitutionally possible for the House. If his intention is to leave the

position in doubt it is a remarkable intention, and I should like to know the reason for it. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that without the words there would be no power to legislate to increase the contributions of these two specified categories of Crown servants and foreign-going seamen, I should like to know why he singles out those two categories for special treatment. I ask him to accept the fact that those are the only categories which the Amendment can affect.
That being so, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman's speech went much wider than the terms of the Amendment or the constitutional——

Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. In moving the Amendment, my right hon. Friend deployed his arguments and he was not ruled out of order, Sir Charles. Since the speech of my right hon. Friend was in order, I would ask you to rule that he should not be instructed by the Minister as to what is in order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before you deal with that point, Sir Charles, I should like to point out that I never suggested that you did not rule appropriately—or fail to rule appropriately—in this case. I did not suggest that what the right hon. Gentleman said was out of order. It was clear to me that you were giving him ample opportunity to bring his observations within the context of the Amendment.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that the Amendment has not and cannot have anything to do with the very wide issues which he sought to deploy. It is concerned with a very narrow point. It goes only to the question whether the Northern Ireland Government shall or shall not be given a clear indication that they are entitled to legislate over the whole field including the two specified categories—foreign-going seamen and Crown servants. In my submission, it is quite obvious that the position in Northern Ireland should be similar to that which obtains here in respect of that Government's right of action. Whether they act or not is a matter for them, but the position should be made as clear as it can be within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I have rarely heard a more specious argument than that of the Minister. He could not have listened


to the very powerful and cogent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand).
I have a copy of the 1957 Act, with which the Amendment deals. The Amendment suggests that Section 5, in so far as it relates to Northern Ireland, should not be written into the Bill. I am not concerned to argue whether or not a constitutional point is involved in regard to the relation between this country and Northern Ireland, but if such a point is involved it is competent for the Committee to consider it. Section 5 of the 1957 Act provides that
no limitation or restriction imposed by virtue of any enactment on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall preclude that Parliament from passing legislation for purposes similar to the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act"—
that is, the Act of 1957. Today, we are faced with an entirely new situation. The Government have introduced a Bill to increase the National Health Service contributions, and they are seeking to make that operative both in regard to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Griffiths: To some people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fletcher: Our argument is that in passing the Bill we should not make those contributions payable by certain people in Northern Ireland. We are constitutionally entitled to argue that matter.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee vehemently opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. We divided against it, and were, unfortunately, beaten, owing to a temporary majority on the other side. We are opposed to it in principle. The majority carrying the Second Reading was inflated by a number of representatives of Northern Ireland constituencies. We are seeking to protect and preserve the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
I listened very attentively to the Second Reading debate, and I have since read the HANSARD report of it, and I cannot find a single mention of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that any Member on either side of the House referred to it. This is, therefore, virtually the first opportunity that we have had to consider to what extent it is reasonable that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred

to the operations of the New York City Council, but that has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I mention that fact only to indicate the scope of the Second Reading debate.
We approach the situation in regard to Northern Ireland with a clean sheet. I was not a part to the Act of 1957, or to Section 5, which gave the Northern Ireland Parliament certain rights. Looking at the question de novo, however, I am convinced that we must consider whether it is reasonable, fair and just to make these increased Health Service contributions payable by people in Northern Ireland.
No constitutional question arises out of the Act of 1920. I do not think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman would dare to deny that it is competent for us, as a matter of constitutional theory and practice, to legislate whether or not Section 5 of the principal Act should not be extended to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is perfectly true, but it only affects and can only affect these two narrow specific categories of Crown servants and foreign-going seamen.

Mr. Fletcher: I dare say, but I say that it would affect more. I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right or wrong, but let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that there are only two limited categories that it might affect. I would still prefer to protect those two categories than protect none at all. I would still hope that if we make a sufficiently emphatic and dogmatic protest about those two categories, that will in itself have some effect on whether the Parliament of Northern Ireland should decide to apply the Act generally to other categories. Therefore, this is a matter of some great importance.
It is for those reasons that my right hon. Friend deployed arguments to show that the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different from the situation in Great Britain from an industrial, economic and political point of view.

Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is only a caretaker Government in Northern Ireland at the moment.

Mr. Fletcher: Exactly. The Government of Northern Ireland is only a caretaker Government. There is not a Government there with a proper democratic right to represent the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to look to this House for their protection and for the safeguarding of their constitutional liberties, and that is what we are trying to do.
For the right hon. and learned Gentleman, by innuendo, to attempt to suggest that my right hon. Friend's speech was out of order in traversing this important question was most ill-advised and most disrespectful to the Chair. It was a totalitarian view. He had obviously failed to observe the vital significance of what my right hon. Friend was saying. My right hon. Friend was arguing, if I understood him correctly—and I support him—that the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different from the situation in England and Scotland. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any Member on the Government Front Bench getting into the habit of assuming that economic and industrial conditions in Northern Ireland are the same as they are in this country. We all know that they are profoundly different.
Serious problems of unemployment exist in Northern Ireland. There are serious problems of family conditions, family insurance and the size of families in Northern Ireland that do not operate in this country. I feel sure that we would be remiss in our duty if, now that we have got the opportunity which this Amendment provides of considering how this Bill operates in Northern Ireland, we did not take the fullest opportunity of ventilating the grievances of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Nobody else does it for them.

Mr. Fletcher: True, nobody else does it. We have constitutional obligations to do it, and I for one am anxious to exercise my constitutional rights and duties. I feel very sorry for the people of Northern Ireland, and I want to take every opportunity that is open to me to protect them. It is no objection to this Amendment for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that this Amendment may only apply to limited categories of people.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It can only apply.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not mind whether it can or whether it cannot. Even if, strictly, it can only apply to limited categories, I should have thought that, a fortiori, it is all the more important that we should do everything we can to protect the rights of those limited categories of people in Northern Ireland whom we can protect. If we do that and we convince hon. Members opposite of the justice of protecting the people of Northern Ireland, if we do it in respect of limited categories of people, I believe that that will have a moral persuasive effect which will extend far beyond the limited categories to whom it may have a limited, strictly legal application.
4.15 p.m.
I do not want to reiterate the very serious hardships and economic conditions under which the people of Northern Ireland are suffering at the moment.

Mr. Mellish: Why not?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to trespass upon the time of the Committee. I merely adopt the arguments of my right hon. Friend. I feel that the speech of the Minister of Health was totally unsatisfactory. He failed to apply himself to the really serious motives that are behind this Amendment, and I hope that, on reflection, he will see the wisdom and justice of accepting this Amendment.

Sir David Campbell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health has dealt with the main points raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), but there are one or two points to which he did not refer because they fall outside the scope of the proposed Amendment.
With permission, I should like to say something by way of reply to some of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) made quite clear to all of us what is behind the strictures which have come from the benches opposite. He referred to the fact that elections are pending in Northern Ireland. I do not propose to make an Election address here——

Mr. Mellish: Why not?

Sir D. Campbell: —though I think that the speeches from the benches opposite were made deliberately with that purpose.
The Section to which the Amendment applies merely means that the Government of Northern Ireland will have full powers to introduce whatever rates they think fit for all other than members of the Armed Forces. In fact, it has been announced that the Northern Ireland Government intend to introduce at an early date a Bill which will impose necessary increases. The present rate of contribution in Northern Ireland is the same as it is in the United Kingdom as a whole, and it is the intention of the Northern Ireland Government, if they are returned to power, as, of course, they will be, to introduce a Bill similar to the one which is before us.
The only matter which is doubtful is whether the Northern Ireland Government have the power to introduce these increases with respect to officers of the Crown—postal clerks, Customs and Excise officers, and so on—plus foreign-going seamen. The Government of Northern Ireland have no power to legislate in respect of National Health contributions of members of Her Majesty's Services serving in Northern Ireland, and they never did have that power. The question narrows itself down to whether we should remove the doubt as to the competence of the Northern Ireland Government to legislate in respect of officers of the Crown and foreign-going seamen. That is the entire scope of this Amendment.
Turning to one or two of the other points which have been raised, I am glad to be able to assure the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East that the National Health Service in Northern Ireland is of a very high order. I do not say that improvement could not be brought about in hospital accommodation and certain other branches of the Service, but, generally speaking, the quality of the Service is as high as the Service in the United Kingdom as a whole and can compare exceedingly favourably.
The costs of our Service have increased, of course, and, as in this country, to meet those increased costs the Government will act rightly and properly when they introduce a Bill to increase the charges. The Minister has stated categorically that he

will introduce these increases. The Northern Ireland Government have thought it right and proper that the increased costs should be met to some extent by means of additional contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland. We on this side of the Committee are just as concerned about the grave unemployment situation in Northern Ireland as hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. However, the suggestion that not to increase the male worker's health contributions by 6d. a week is not one which would help us to solve our problem of unemployment.

Mr. Albert Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the effect on the part-time workers in Northern Ireland, upon whom this Increase will bear most heavily?

Sir D. Campbell: We have a number of part-time workers in Northern Ireland, just as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is true that an additional 6d. a week means something to the part-time worker, but it is not of such tremendous weight as the hon. Member would seem to suggest.
We are all grievously concerned about this unemployment. It is a matter with which the Northern Ireland Government are doing their best to deal. They have been in close consultation with the Government here, and they are working on schemes which, I trust, will help us in dealing with this grave problem.
I would suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there is one way in which they may possibly help us, and that is by using their influence with the trade union movement. I am all in favour of trade unions and of the trade union movement, but I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members opposite should use their influence to see that trade unions do not fight one another and so give rise to strikes and, thereby, to further unemployment.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going a little beyond the Amendment.

Sir D. Campbell: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but the right hon. Gentleman did drift very considerably away from the Amendment.
I merely say, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that this Amendment, if passed, would leave in doubt whether a small category of persons in Northern Ireland could have their National Health contributions increased by the Government of Northern Ireland whereas it leaves the great majority of the people, and certainly those who are unemployed or on part-time work, entirely at the mercy—and it is the mercy—of the Northern Ireland Government, which have the interests of the unemployed very much in mind. It seems to me quite wrong that hon. Members should ask us to support an Amendment which would have the effect of leaving out two small groups of persons in Northern Ireland from the legislative competency which the Northern Ireland Government possesses.

Mr. Mellish: It is always a privilege and a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell), who is a very popular Member, and if I criticise what he has said it is not to be taken as a criticism of him as a person. It is simply his politics that we do not like.
It is good to hear the problems of Northern Ireland being discussed in this Committee. It is a pity that Members representing Northern Ireland are the most silent Members. It is a great pity that they come all this way from the other side of the water only to say nothing when they come here, especially as they have more problems than we have. An opportunity of this kind should be very welcome to them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In a debate the other day on unemployment we gave an opportunity to Members from Northern Ireland to take part, and most of them did take part. We gave them the opportunity to raise this tragic problem.

Mr. Mellish: I am glad to hear that, because I think that the Northern Ireland people are a great people.
The purpose of this very simple Amendment, which the Minister tried so hard adequately to explain, is to protect at least some of those people. Of course, we are glad to take the opportunity to express general opinions on the problems to which the Amendment is related.
I think that the individuals concerned would be relieved if this Amendment could be carried. I would remind hon. Members from Northern Ireland, if they are still listening, that the argument, "This is only 6d. extra" is not a really valid one. It is an argument which can go on and on. The contribution could go up 3d. in another month's time, 6d. in a month after that, another 3d. three months after that. Whenever one of these increases is made the argument is always that it is only 3d. or only 6d. This 6d. is imposed on top of the already very heavy payment which now amounts to nearly 10s. a week, which has to be found by every man or woman who is insured.
This is a very substantial amount of money. I should have thought that hon. Members from Northern Ireland would have been only to pleased to have strenuously opposed the imposition of this burden on the workers in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of part-time employment in Northern Ireland, far more thy here, and salaries are very bad indeed.
The whole trouble with Northern Ireland is that it is a country where politics are quite different from what we in the rest of Great Britain understand politics to be. They are not conducted on the basis of the Tories on the one hand and Labour people on the other and with a few Liberals floating about. Over there, politics are based on religion. People do not vote on the basis of being Tories or supporters of the Labour Party. They——

The Chairman: If we start on that subject we shall get into trouble.

Mr. Mellish: I was only making the point, Sir Charles, that in this great political assembly, when we discuss matters of this kind, we should remember the rather sad position of our kinsfolk in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harry Randall: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know, for example, that among Post Office employees in Northern Ireland there is a greater number of part-time postmen than in the postal services in any other part of the United Kingdom. A sad feature of this is that these part-time postmen in Northern Ireland are unable


to follow any other occupation and have to depend upon their pay from the Post Office.

Mr. Mellish: That is an illustration of the scene. I have said that there is more part-time employment in Northern Ireland than there is here. There is that special problem of the postmen in Northern Ireland. In England there are part-time postmen only at Christmas time, when there is a special demand on the postal services.
These people are being asked to pay a greater contribution without any protest being made by any of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. They are not protecting them, and we on this side of the Committee try to do so. I have very little Irish blood in me. It is four or five generations back. I do not see why I should bother about Northern Ireland, but, still, we do our best for it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, South said he did not want to read an Election address to us. I wanted to ask him: is it being said by his party that if it gets back to power it will impose this 6d.? Is that what members of his party are saying? Are they telling the people in Northern Ireland that? Whether he denies or admits it, I must take it from him, but I can only say that Elections in Northern Ireland, so far as I can judge, are not fought on issues like that.
As I said earlier, when you, Sir Charles, ruled me out of order, religion is the only issue. I say it only in passing. It is a terrible thing that in this day and age there cannot be rows simply between Tories and Labour people, and that, instead, there are rows about whether people are Catholics or Protestants. What I object to is that at the end of a General Election we here are pestered with a large number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are not elected because they are Tories, but who are elected on the basis of religion. I object to it very strongly, and I think that many of my hon. Friends do, too.
Every time an Election is fought we in this country are handicapped by having, as a start, a dozen or so hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are elected——

The Chairman: We must leave religion out of these matters.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I will not go on about religion, Sir Charles.
My party objects strongly to the purpose of this Bill. I would not have minded if people in this country or in Northern Ireland received greater benefits from the National Health Service through this extra 6d. The Minister implied on Second Reading that they would do so, but I know what will happen. There will be substantial cuts, to a great extent hospital management committees and regional boards will find that they will not be able to continue their existing services, and there will be a standstill in future development for at least a year because of the Minister's policy of cutting the amount of money available to them. So, on the one hand, we shall pay more and, on the other, we shall get less.
The Minister can "muck about" with figures as much as he likes. His main argument is based on the Estimates. I know that he will say that there will be an extra amount this year but it is, in fact, a cut, and he knows it. Thirteen thousand pounds for the South-Eastern region——

The Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Mellish: This relates to Northern Ireland, Sir Charles, because if that is happening here it will be happening there. I am arguing that the extra 6d. should be opposed by the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. They should say that it is wrong. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland are looking wistful and wondering what it is all about. They should get up and say something.

Mr. G. B. H. Currie: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has referred to some of us as sitting here wistfully wondering what it is all about. There is a great deal of truth in what he says in that respect, because the hon. Gentleman ranged so far and wide of the compelling reasons for moving such an Amendment that, in the end, we wondered precisely what he wanted to do. His right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) explained admirably the purpose of the Amendment, namely, to make Section 5 of the 1957 Act no longer applicable to Northern Ireland.
Two things emerge with clarity. The first is that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make an electioneering speech because there is to be an Election in Northern Ireland. The other was that for the first time the Socialist Party in the House of Commons has come out into the open and has said that it is its policy, as a party, to remove from the Government of Northern Ireland their power to legislate on vital domestic matters. That is the effect of the Amendment. The powers of the Northern Ireland Government are to be reduced by limiting their power to legislate on matters relating to Health Service charges. That is a grave constitutional issue and one which, I hope, will be appreciated by the people of Northern Ireland who read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate.
To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, and to be completely impartial, let us examine what the Amendment proposes to do. It proposes to remove from the Northern Ireland Government their power to legislate for the increased National Health Service charge relating to foreign-going seamen and also to servants of the Crown other than those in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces have always been outside the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and that Parliament have never sought this power. They have, however, sought to clarify its legislative capacity as regards Post Office and other servants of the Crown following peaceful pursuits.
Supposing this Amendment were to be accepted by the Committee, and as a result Section 5 of the 1957 Act were no longer applicable to Northern Ireland, what would be the position? No doubt a test action would have to be fought some time to decide whether or not the Government of Northern Ireland had power to impose an additional charge in respect of the Health Service contributions. We do not want this position of ambiguity. We do not want the matter to be left unclarified. We want, here and now, in the way the Government have suggested, to put this beyond doubt so that we shall not have to fight any legal actions. Therefore, I am glad that the matter have been ventilated.
Reference has been made to unemployment in Northern Ireland, and it is recognised by those who sit opposite that those

of us on this side of the Committee are as gravely concerned as they are about unemployment. Since this question has been raised, however, may I point out that three weeks ago Scottish and Welsh hon. Gentlemen opposite were asking whether similar measures for the relief of unemployment could be introduced in the distressed areas of Scotland and South Wales to those which the Government of Northern Ireland have introduced over the past few years. I therefore hope that some appreciation will be shown on the other side of the Committee of what has been done by the Government of Northern Ireland.
Finally, there is no point in the Amendment put by the Opposition. It is purely a political gambit, and in my submission it should be rejected out of hand.

Mr. John Diamond: I am sure, Sir Charles, that you would like us to have the opportunity to deny the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) that this Amendment is a purely political gambit. He could not have been listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), or he would not have permitted himself to use such an expression.
What we are concerned with on this side of the Committee is to protect those who have no others to protect them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to feel that they are entitled to come here and assist in legislation on behalf of some free citizens who will be ruled in a particular way if their views are supported. They cannot conceive of the possibility of their views being defeated.
In the present situation, when Northern Ireland is without a democratically elected Government, it is up to those of us on this side of the Committee to step into the breach, and, in a democratic fashion, attempt to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland who are citizens of the United Kingdom.
This argument would not find favour on the Government Front Bench, where the Minister, not being able to controvert the powerful arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East, rose immediately my right hon. Friend finished his speech


and before allowing any other hon. Member to participate in the debate. He is entitled to do that if he wants to rule the Committee in this way. II is a way to veto free speech in the House of Commons, an attempt to veto the Ruling of the Chair, as you will have observed, Sir Charles, by suggesting that you will allow the discussion to go too wide. Who, having sat under your fair chairmanship, would ever suggest that it was possible for you to allow the discussion to go too wide?
Having suggested that, and having attempted to answer a point of order addressed to you by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths), it is clear that the Minister would not favour this kind of argument. Unable to deal with the arguments, he attempted to shut up the Committee by speaking straight away and by saying that my right hon. Friend was grossly misinformed. It has turned out that the only person grossly misinformed is the Minister himself.
We are dealing with a most important category of persons, foreign-going seamen. The House of Commons saw fit, a few days ago, to interrupt most important business and to divert its whole attention for three hours to dealing with one foreign-going seaman. Here we are dealing with a number of such men who have no one to protect them, no Parliament in Northern Ireland to look after them, and with Northern Ireland Members apparently only too anxious to support the Government, irrespective of the arguments, and leaving it to this side of the Committee, to those who believe in democratic procedure and who do not believe in these increased contributions, to support these men.
In those circumstances, having regard to the affront to the Committee and the affront to the Chair and the lack of reply to the arguments, I sincerely hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will protest and will divide on the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion and I shall detain the Committee for only a few moments. I intervene principally on account of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He has not

been fair to Members for Northern Ireland constituencies who sit on this side of the Committee. He said that he would have liked to have heard more from them about Northern Irish affairs, but there are many matters, of which health is one, about which we are largely inhibited from speaking because they fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. If we spoke about them, we should be ruled out of order.
However, the hon. Member said something which I thought very unfair—if I may say so without any feeling of animosity—which was that in Northern Ireland Members are elected on the basis of religion. I entirely disagree with that. On the contrary, the religion of the minority is represented, and there is much less animosity on that score than there has been in the past, and I deplore any tendency to inflame it. Also, the members of the religion of the minority enjoy the social services, such as the Health Service, which are of a standard much higher than that enjoyed by their co-religionists on the other side of the Border, in the Republic of Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that he would have liked to have heard something about how the Health Service in Northern Ireland worked. I will only say that we have a Health Service of which we are very proud. We have a first-rate medical school in our university and our hospitals are well staffed and, particularly on the clinical side, can stand up to hospitals anywhere in the world. I am extremely proud of them.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was a little disparaging about the Government of Northern Ireland, whom he called a "caretaker" Government. I want to set his mind at rest. More than half the new Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland have been returned unopposed and they are pledged to support the Unionist Government of Northern Ireland. Among those 27 Members are the Prime Minister and five of his Cabinet colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Member need have no apprehensions that the affairs of Northern Ireland will not be carried on with the same efficiency and humanity as in the past.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would it interest the hon. Member to know that I am repeatedly asked to raise questions in the House about injustices in Northern Ireland, questions which would be out of order? It is merely because of that that I took this opportunity, which does arise on a matter which is in order, of trying to express some of the grievances felt by the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hyde: I appreciate that the hon. Member is asked to raise these issues. I have been asked to raise issues affecting English constituencies and I endeavour to do so. The odds are even there.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: When the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) rose, I thought that he intended to speak in the same tone which he adopted in the debate on 24th February, when the House of Commons debated unemployment. According to HANSARD, he concluded by saying:
My conclusion on this subject is that, unless the cold breezes of financial austerity which are blowing from Whitehall, and which have been blowing for the past year, are somehow tempered to the shorn lamb of Ulster's economy, our unemployment figures are likely to reach unprecedented heights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 135.]
In other words, he was asking the Government to make Northern Ireland a special case and to discriminate.

Mr. Hyde: It is only right that the hon. Member should bear in mind that those remarks were directed to the operation of the credit squeeze.

Mr. Prentice: I understand that, but it is logical to apply the same sort of reasoning to the subject with which we are dealing this afternoon, because the purpose of the Amendment is to discriminate in favour of Northern Ireland.
Much has been said about the fact that Stormont can legislate for itself on these matters, but last year, when this Parliament raised the National Health Service contribution, Stormont followed and we have been told this afternoon that it intends to follow suit again. The Amendment is an attempt to discriminate.
I suggest—and it has not been denied by speakers from the other side of the Committee—that there is some relationship between this matter and unemployment in Northern Ireland. The effect of the Bill on Northern Ireland will be only

small, but the situation which now exists there is such that we ought to be supersensitive about any effect, however small, however marginal, on the unemployment situation in an area where, we have been told, the present unemployment figure is more than 10 per cent.
This Bill is one of a series. Last year, there was legislation which raised the National Insurance contribution and in November there was a further rise. This is the third increase in less than a year. What will be the effects on an area suffering from heavy unemployment? I think that there will be three. The first is that great hardship will be imposed on those people who are hanging on and who themselves may be unemployed next week or the week after. One of the worst aspects of a depressed area is that those who are in work never know when it is their turn to be out of work.
There are people who are worried whether they will be put off at the end of this week or next week, and there are very few whose wages allow them to scrape something together for a reserve of savings to cushion the effect of unemployment when it comes. On these people, and particularly on the part-time workers who have been mentioned already, a cut of 6d. in their take-home pay is serious and ought to be considered.
Secondly, there will be an adverse effect on the purchasing power of working-class families in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it is only 6d. if there is one wage earner, and perhaps 1s. or 10d. if there is more than one, dependent on whether they are men and women and that sort of thing, but the purchasing power of these families will be seriously affected in an area which is already depressed——

Mr. A. Evans: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of the policy which was behind the earlier increase was that it was an attempt by the Government to restrict the amount of money in the hands of the consumer?

Mr. Prentice: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it is a bad policy for the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly bad for a depressed area like Northern Ireland.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Could not the hon. Gentleman spread this argument further? He is really saying that


the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives cannot do things so well as this Government.

Mr. Prentice: I suggest that the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of this country cannot do things as well as a Labour Government in this country would do them.
Thirdly, apart from the actual effects of this proposed increased charge upon the economy of Northern Ireland, the acceptance of the Amendment would be a gesture on behalf of this Government. It would show that in something they had discriminated. In the debate on unemployment, both the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade said how concerned they were with the employment situation in Northern Ireland. The people there are now waiting to see whether that concern will be translated into something practical. This is a very small step which we are proposing, but it would be one by which we could show that we had discriminated in favour of this area, and it certainly should be supported by those hon. Members opposite who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: We cannot hope to settle the political and economic destinies of Northern Ireland on this Bill. The political destiny of Northern Ireland rests in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. As I said in a public meeting in Belfast the last time I spoke there, so long as politics in Northern Ireland are fuddled with Pope and partition no sense will come out of it. That is all I have to say on the general position of Northern Ireland.
I want to know what will be the effect of the Amendment on Crown servants in Northern Ireland. Did I understand the Minister to say that if the Amendment were carried it would preclude the Northern Ireland Government from levying a contribution on Crown servants in Northern Ireland, or would the effect of passing the Amendment be to facilitate the levying of an additional contribution on Crown servants in addition to that which would be levied by the British Government? I am anxious to discover whether the Amendment would enable the discrimination to be made in favour of Crown servants in Northern Ireland or whether it would enable it to be made against them.
In either case, I am afraid that I cannot agree to an Amendment which does discriminate, one way or the other, in relation to Crown servants in Northern Ireland. My interest in Crown servants in this country is much too great for me to want to support an Amendment which will relieve them of a contribution which the rest of Crown servants in this country might have to pay. Still less would I assent to an Amendment to impose a higher contribution in respect of Crown servants than is imposed on them here.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged. I had hoped that I had made it clear. I am in the slightly paradoxical position of being asked to interpret an Amendment which has been moved from the other side of the Committee. Indeed, I have incurred the displeasure of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for so doing, which he expressed in somewhat less than his customary temperate language. But I cannot resist the temptation to reply. The position is this.
If the Amendment is rejected, it is clear that it will be open to the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate in respect of Crown servants and foreign-going seamen, if in their discretion they so desire. If the Amendment were carried, the effect would be to place the issue in doubt, dependent on the precise interpretation of Section 5 (1) of the 1957 Act.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I do not rise at all in my capacity of Irishman. Unlike some other Irish Members who have spoken, I come from south of the Border. I only rise on one point which the Minister made in his first speech on this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he understood from the Government of Northern Ireland that it was their intention to introduce a Bill similar to the one which is now before this Committee. In other words, it is their intention to impose a similar increase to those we are to have here. We understand that the Northern Ireland Government have their own Health Service, quite independent of our Health Service. The question I want to ask is what exactly is the relationship—not constitutionally but administratively—between our Health Service and the Health Service in


Northern Ireland that should bring about the remarkable coincidence that just at the time when we find it necessary—if we do find it necessary—to impose these increases for the financing of our Health Service in this country, the Government of Northern Ireland are finding it necessary to impose a precisely similar increase of precisely the same amount and covering precisely the same classes of person for the purpose of financing their own Health Service in Northern Ireland. It seems an extraordinary state of affairs.
I appreciate that it is not for the Minister here to answer for the administration of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, but, quite clearly, there is and there must be a close administrative relationship between the two Governments and the two services for the Minister even to be apprised of this fact. Further, we see that the Minister is most sensitive to the possibility that as a result of our Amendment being carried, if it were carried, some doubt might arise as to what was the exact scope of the power of the Government of Northern Ireland to impose similar increases relating to Crown servants or foreign-going seamen in Northern Ireland.
He told us that what, in fact, happens in Northern Ireland is that they use our stamps, surcharged with "Northern Ireland." Is it really the case that what lies behind the Government's opposition to this Amendment is the fact that if it were carried it might be necessary for the Government of Northern Ireland to print their own stamps and study and work out their own scheme? In other words, what is the truth of the matter? Have they really got their own Health Service, and are they really free to decide matters for themselves, or is the truth of the matter that they are administratively compelled to follow sheep-like in our wake; that is to say, a rubber stamp? If that is the position, we should know about it.
I therefore ask the Minister if he will clear up this matter and explain to us why it is that at this moment, when our Government find it necessary to ask for these increases, the Government of Northern Ireland should ask for precisely similar increases and for precisely the same purposes.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I thought that the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was excessively legalistic. It sounded not so much like a speech from a Minister of Health as from an Attorney-General; and perhaps there is more than one good reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the Attorney-General and not the Minister of Health.
I have never been so pleased with the fate of any Amendment which I have moved during a Committee stage in this House. It was addressed to a rather narrow and technical point, which was all that the scope of the Bill permitted me to do. But it has succeeded in its object. The debate upon it has elicited some information about what is happening in Northern Ireland. It brought several hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland into the Chamber and drew speeches from no less than three of them that we were glad to hear.
I said nothing about the Election, but all three of the hon. Members could not keep off the subject. It became clear that this topic is likely to be an issue in the Northern Ireland Election. I hope it will be. If my Amendment has achieved that it will have served a useful purpose. It is apparent from our discussions that the Northern Ireland Government should think a long time before imposing this new tax on the insured workpeople of Northern Ireland. The moving of this Amendment has served a useful purpose, but I do not wish to be misunderstood. I should not like it to be considered in Northern Ireland that we wish to inhibit the Northern Ireland Government from following the good practices of Governments in this country.
We were pleased when the Northern Ireland Government followed the example of the Labour Government in 1946 and started a National Health Service. We were delighted when they followed our example and nationalised road transport and when they followed our example in many other respects, including in their agriculture policy. There is every hope that when a change of Government takes place in this country—as it will before long—the


Government of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity of following a good example again. I do not wish to be misunderstood, and so I feel that now we should be content with the debate which has resulted, and having expressed our point of view make clear that we want the people of Northern Ireland to debate this issue for themselves.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hesitate to delay the Committee by entering into this debate at so late a point, but I think it as well that all of us, including myself, should understand what the Committee is doing. Apparently, there has been a good deal of doubt expressed about the meaning of the Amendment. Before we debate the question of its effect, it seems to me that we should look at the Bill to see what is its effect in relation to these matters. It seems to me that we have to approach it looking first—because this is the relevant point—at Clause 2 (2) for what light it throws on the Amendment we are now discussing. That subsection says:
This Act, except subsection (3) of the preceding section, shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
If, therefore, we leave out Clause 1 (3) the Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland at all and these increases could not be levied in Northern Ireland unless a Northern Ireland Parliament so decided.
If my right hon. and hon. Friends wish these increases which we are now seeking to impose on the citizens of the United Kingdom not to be automatically imposed by this Bill on the citizens of Northern Ireland, the simple thing to do would be to eliminate Clause 1 (3) and make the consequential Amendment in Clause 2 (2). Then we should have the result that in Northern Ireland the contributions chargeable would be those now chargeable by reason of the principal Act, but this increase would not be chargeable in Northern Ireland unless separately enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament. That is the objective of the present Amendments, and I do not see what the difficulty is or why there need be any ambiguity.
We on this side of the Committee believe it unjust, tyrannical and oppressive that at this moment of time these charges should be added to contributors in England. We may not have succeeded in persuading the Government—we have

probably succeeded in persuading the country, but that will not matter until after the next General Election—and we get nothing for our own people——

Mr. E. Fletcher: At and after the Election.

Mr. S. Silverman: Yes, at the Election first, and after the result of the Election puts my right hon. Friends on the benches opposite and the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on these benches we shall be able to relieve the contributors in this country from this unjust and oppressive strain on their pockets—this extra poll tax.
We are now at the Committee stage of this Bill, and if we can relieve anybody there seems no reason why we should not do so, even though their circumstances are the same as ours. But in Northern Ireland they are suffering from an even more oppressive Government than we are. Their total of unemployed is higher than ours has yet reached. Whether that position will remain at the time of the next General Election I would hesitate to say, but I am not optimistic. At present, Northern Ireland has a higher degree of unemployment than we have. To that extent, to impose this extra burden on them is a responsibility from which the Northern Ireland Parliament ought not to be relieved. It is for them to decide, and for them to take the responsibility in their own General Election for making an additional charge parallel to the additional charge which we are making. There is no reason why this Committee should impose this extra burden on Northern Ireland which has its own Government and which insisted on having its own Government and on having certain powers reserved to it.

Mr. Hyde: It is untrue to say that Northern Ireland insisted on its own Government. We wanted to come under the Parliament and Government of Westminster, but it was forced on us by the Act of 1920.

Mr. Silverman: That is a controversy which it would be out of order for me to pursue. I am sure, however, that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention will be received with delight in Dublin where they are of opinion that Northern Ireland wishes the partition as


it now is and to retain its own Government. If it is the wish of Northern Ireland to retain its own Government, it is right and proper that that Government should take the responsibility of putting this extra burden on Northern Ireland citizens rather than that the burden should be undertaken by this House.

Sir D. Campbell: This Bill and this Amendment have nothing whatever to do with the powers of the Northern Ireland Government regarding the increasing of National Health contributions, except to put out of doubt whether there is jurisdiction to legislate in respect of the contributions of officers of the Crown or foreign-going seamen.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse me any more than I have already been confused by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Government Front Bench. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that if we did not enact Clause 1 (3) and if we left out of Clause 2 (2) the words, "except subsection (3) of the preceding section", the effect would be to leave the Northern Ireland Parliament free to decide for itself whether it would pass in Northern Ireland legislation parallel to the Bill, which would then apply only to the United Kingdom. Surely that is correct.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member was not here when I made my speech. I tried to explain then the position if the Amendment were carried. It would be that the position of the Northern Irish Government, in respect only of these two limited categories, which is all we are dealing with today, would be doubtful. It would be dependent upon whether the permissive power contained in Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1957 carried forward for these purposes or not. It would be a question of doubt and legal interpretation, which would be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Silverman: Let us approach the matter on that basis. I should not have thought there was much doubt about it, but one does not need to be dogmatic on the point, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that without these Amendments there would be doubt. No Government would proceed to attempt to collect the additional poll tax

if they thought that the authority to do so were in doubt. If the Amendment I suggest were made, the doubt would have to be cleared up in other ways. In those circumstances, the only place where the doubt could be cleared up would be the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which would then have, what I am sure it always wished to have, the exclusive responsibility of deciding whether in these two classes of case the additional impost should be collected or not.
It is impossible to imagine that if this part of the Bill which I have suggested might be left out were in fact left out the money could be collected in Northern Ireland unless the Northern Ireland Parliament so enacted. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that, because if he does not he would not have drawn his Bill in this way.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is a question of the effect of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. It is clear from the line the hon. Gentleman is taking that he missed not only my speech, which is a deprivation easily to be borne, but the very excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie), who explained the position very precisely to the Committee.

Mr. Silverman: I missed a great many of the speeches, and I regret it. I apologised at the beginning of my speech for not being in and for delaying the Committee so much about it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me disrespectful of his own speech or of anybody else's speech if I say that I prefer to look at the words of the Bill, to relate them as best I can to the law as it is without them, and then to see how far we can get in that way. I thought it was sufficient for my argument to adopt what the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said. Unless his Bill had been drawn in this way there would remain doubts about the authority to collect this additional money. He said so repeatedly. If there were no doubt, it is impossible to understand why the words are there at all.
If we take the words out there is then a doubt. If there is a doubt we cannot collect the money. If the doubt is to be resolved, the only way would then be the


legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament that the Northern Ireland representatives appear to be very anxious to avoid for reasons which I think we can understand.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Currie: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is a very old friend of mine, and for whom I have a great respect as a debater, but I do not think he does himself justice, having missed the earlier speeches. Does he not agree that the whole matter is governed by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and the powers of the Northern Ireland Government which were vested in that Government by that Act?
If he agrees, does he not further agree that there is complete authority in the Government of Northern Ireland to legislate on the National Health Service contribution? If he does, does he not also agree that if there is doubt about matters on which the Northern Ireland Government can legislate—and that is what we are trying to resolve—the matter will have to be determined in the courts? It could not be resolved by the Government of Northern Ireland without resort to the courts. If the Northern Ireland Government have not that power under the 1920 Act, nobody could put the matter right except the House. I agree that it might well suit hon. Gentlemen opposite if the matter were to be taken to the courts for determination, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is probably better that it should be determined here and now on this Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: All I am concerned about is to save the hon. Gentleman's Northern Ireland constituents from an unjust impost from which I cannot save the citizens of the United Kingdom. I gather from what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if this Amendment were accepted there would be a chance of saving some of them and if it were not accepted there would be no chance of saving any of them. That is why my hon. Friends put down Amendments which I am supporting.
In spite of the extremely careful and lucid argument of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie): which may, for anything I know, be correct, I would prefer to leave the gathering of the impost of doubtful legality rather than to

make it certain that it could be legally collected. I would rather the Government could not do so; I would rather place as many difficulties as I could in the way of collecting it. If any responsibility has to be borne in Northern Ireland for the collection of a further poll tax, it is better that it should be borne by the Northern Ireland Parliament who can get the support of the electors for what they have done, rather than they should shelter behind the House of Commons and say," It is not our fault. We had to collect the money because the Imperial Parliament at Westminster told us we must "—which is the position if the Act is unamended.
The Committee would be very well advised to accept the Amendment and to, leave the Northern Ireland Parliament to wrestle with the position as it would then be.

Mr. Gower: I do not think we should allow this discussion to pass without comment on the remarkable theory, put forward by the party opposite, that it is good to delegate to a country or community like Ulster the right to legislate for itself so long as it legislates in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition. That is a quite remarkable theory, which makes nonsense of the professions of many hon. Members opposite that people in territories in other parts of the world should have self-government.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member, I am sure inadvertently, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. What we are pleading for is that if possible this power to exact further tax shall be exercised in Northern Ireland, if at all, by an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament. We want to give them full permission to use it if they desire.

Mr. Gower: That is where I think the hon. Member is making a mistake. The position is that nothing in this Bill, nor in these Amendments, can affect in one small degree the right of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to legislate in respect of its own residents. Whether there should be a Health Service at all, or higher charges, in Northern Ireland—whatever we do here—in respect of domestic residents is a decision for the Parliament of Nothern Ireland. There are certain special categories which were


mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) which are outside that. It is on that narrow field only that we are having this discussion.

Dr. Horace King: Without following the legal intricacies presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I have followed the debate, and I do not think anyone on either side of the Committee wants to interfere with the ultimate right of the Northern Ireland Parliament to make their own decisions about health charges. We take the view, on the other hand, that the Northern Ireland Parliament has an opportunity of which we shall be deprived, of saving the unemployed in Northern Ireland—the maimed, the lame, the cripple, the blind and the poor of Northern Ireland—from bearing this latest poll tax. The purpose of this debate is to attempt to convey to the people of Northern Ireland the desire of hon. Members on this side of the Committee that the poorest people there should not suffer this new imposition which is being made by this Government. I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Whatever may be the legal position about the rights of the Northern Ireland Government under the Government of Ireland Act, we know of two facts. Unhappily, Northern Ireland is having a particularly rough time economically. A higher proportion of people there are unemployed than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I understand that my hon. Friends are seeking to provide an opportunity for the Government of Northern Ireland to exempt their people in the present difficult circumstances from what my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) rightly characterised as a poll tax. It is a fact that in these matters the Government of Northern Ireland invariably follow the pattern laid down at Westminster. I have seen nothing in the representation of Ulster in this House during the time I have been here that would lead me to believe that those hon. Members are enthusiastic supporters of social reform. They were among hon. Members opposite who opposed the original Act in all its stages. People in Northern Ireland who have benefited from the National

Health Service have done so despite the attitude taken by the representatives of Ulster.
The Government of Northern Ireland invariably follows the pattern laid down in Westminster, but the pattern of legislation for the National Health Service was laid down by a Labour Government in the original Act of 1946. Therefore, the people of Ulster have enjoyed these benefits up to now because of the design of the Labour Government, despite the opposition of their elected representatives from Ulster. That does not stop Ulster Unionists, whenever the question of internal affairs of Ireland is discussed, from pointing out that the social services in Northern Ireland are infinitely better than those of Eire. That is true, but the reason does not arise from any action those hon. Members have taken. If there is a General Election in Northern Ireland, I hope that the words we have put on record will be avidly read and that they will draw the correct conclusion.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
not being earlier than the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty.
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Government to obtain a mandate before they impose these charges. It has been said on other occasions that Amendments may be moved for this purpose. Today, we see a striking example of a Conservative Government having made certain promises regarding the Health Service in the last Election failing to keep their pledges.
It should be recalled that we have had four Ministers of Health in this Parliament. I do not know whether the present Minister of Health, since the Election, has read the document entitled, "United for Peace and Progress." I read it at the time of the election to see what the then Opposition were doing, and I have refreshed my memory on it. It is an astonishing document. Perhaps, after the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will read what is in page 25 of that document, under the heading "Good Health", to see what his Government promised to do if they were returned with a majority.
The Minister will see under that heading a recital of the improvements the


present Government proposed to make. They were going to build more hospitals and provide more beds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must examine what he has done in the light of these superlative promises that were made. Several questions, of course, would not arise, but I would remind him of his mean proposals regarding staff, the latest regarding radiographers.
In page 25 of that document it was said that preventive work was to be of such a character that, presumably, the Conservative Government would reduce every morbidity rate and mortality rate to such an extent that there would really be no need for a curative Health Service. I do not exaggerate, for summing it all up, the document said:
we rank them …
"Them" being hospitals, staffs, beds and preventive work—
higher than free wigs and free aspirins".
That is a most curious statement in what should be a dignified appeal to the country.
In parenthesis, I should say there must be someone at the Conservative Central Office with an unpleasant form of wit, because wigs are given only to those who have a complaint of a tragic character, alopœcia. We have only to look round the House to see that we do not give wigs to balding men, but only to those with a pathological condition. For the Conservative Central Office to insert that sentence in the appeal is revolting. The document said that they rank these things higher than free wigs and free aspirins. This is a chicken coming home to roost.
What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House only last week? He told the House that under a Conservative Administration—after they had said this in "United for Peace and Progress"—the average cost of a prescription last December was 6s. 1d., in December, 1956, it was 5s. 6½d. and in December, 1955, it was 4s. 7½d. As to free aspirin, I might remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that 43 per cent. of the drugs prescribed in this country are of a proprietary kind, and have no relationship to free aspirin.
5.30 p.m.
I have to mention this, Sir Gordon, before you may rule me out of order, to prove to the Committee that the

promises on health policy made by the Conservative Government have certainly not been kept. In fact, promise and performance have nothing at all in common.
Again, in this pamphlet, there is no mention of charges. A preventive Health Service was promised, and these other promises were made, but the people were not told that the cost of the prescription would be taken out of their own pockets. They were not told that there was to be a charge on prescriptions. They were not told that there were to be two increases—and, maybe, more, before the Government go to the country—on the contributions. Therefore, I say that the people have been grossly betrayed. The Government have not kept their promises. There has been a complete departure from Election pledges.
For this reason we have put down an Amendment that would postpone the implementation of these provisions until after the next Election. The Conservatives will then have an opportunity to go to the country to explain the health policy that has been followed during their term of office and to ask whether they should impose a further charge. I might also say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the light of what he said yesterday, that he might await also the Hinchliffe Report.
In the Second Reading debate I reminded him that this was a panic Measure; that the Government had been forced to do this by the Treasury so that they could save their face over the rather difficult business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer retiring. I told the Minister then that he should first of all have looked at the whole Department with a view to decreasing costs, in order to see if he could possibly raise this £32 million elsewhere. This Amendment will give the Government plenty of time—until July, 1960—to try to prevent waste in some other directions, or to go to the country to ask permission to impose these charges.

Mr. Gower: I respectfully suggest that this is very near, at any rate, to a wrecking Amendment. I do not think that the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) can seriously pretend that this Bill is at all


practicable if such a date is put in. Indeed, such a date is inconsistent with the title of the Bill. Without arguing the merits of the Bill—because those have been discussed, and decided on Second Reading—I suggest that it would be inconsistent with the decision of the House on Second Reading now to insert——

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it in order for the hon. Member to invite the Committee to reject an Amendment on the ground that it is out of order, after you have called it?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): No, it is not in order to pursue that argument.

Mr. Gower: I am not suggesting that it is out of order. I said that it came preciously near to being a wrecking Amendment. Had I said that it entirely destroyed the Bill, I would have said what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I say that if this Bill, the principle of which has been approved by the House, is to be workable, it is essential that this Committee should reject the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has said that the House has accepted the principle of this Bill. That, of course, is true, but with an important exception——

Mr. Randall: The country has not.

Mr. Silverman: That is the second point, to which I shall refer in a moment. At present, I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's argument that the House has accepted the principle of the Bill, and that, therefore, this Amendment comes near to being a wrecking Amendment, as being inconsistent with the Measure's purposes.
If I may say so respectfully, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because the Bill provides that the increased charges shall come into force on a day to be appointed. The date that shall be appointed has never been considered either by the House on Second Reading, or, so far, in Committee. Neither the House not the Committee is committed on that point at all. My right hon. Friend's Amendment is intended to define that date in accordance with the circumstances——

Mr. Gower: "The appointed day," which is the phrase used in the Bill, implies that there will be a date appointed within, the near and reasonable future.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know that that is so, but, even if it were, there would be room for a lot of difference of opinion as to the word "near," and as to the word "reasonable." The Committee is really not committed at all. If the only difficulty that the hon. Gentleman feels in supporting this Amendment is its alleged inconsistency with what the House has already decided, I hope that I have relieved his anxieties and that we may now see him in the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment.
The Committee is absolutely free to limit the Minister's discretion. In the Bill as drawn, he has an absolutely free and unfettered discretion to appoint any date he chooses. We say that his discretion should be cut down; that he should not be entitled to impose this further poll tax until after the country has had an opportunity of considering the matter and endorsing it——

Mr. Gower: Mr. Gower rose——

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to refuse to give way, and if the hon. Member is really anxious to intervene, I shall.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member would not concede this power, in other words, in the lifetime of this Government?

Mr. Silverman: What I think the hon. Member really fears is unspoken, and I will put his real fear into explicit words. What he and the Government are afraid of is that if the Amendment were carried the Bill would never become operative at all. That is what he means by saying that it would not become operative in this Parliament. I can assure him that the next Parliament would have nothing to do with it. That is exactly what he wishes to avoid, for exactly the same reasons as my right hon. Friend wishes it to happen—for exactly those reasons.
In principle, there are the soundest reasons for waiting. It is not only this Act about which the electorate have had no opportunity of expressing any opinion at all. They have had no opportunity of expressing any opinion about the principal Act, either. The principal Act is the 1957 one. By the principal Act, a charge, a contribution for the National


Health Service was imposed for the first time. Before 1957, there was no charge at all——

Mr. A. Evans: No specific charge for the Health Service.

Mr. Silverman: No. There were charges under other social security Acts, and those charges were intended to meet the obligations of the other social security Acts. No doubt, in arranging their finances, the Government used their funds in such ways as they thought advisable, as they were advised to do, and as they secured parliamentary sanction, but, in the beginning, from 1946 until 1957, there was no specific charge for the Health Service at all. That was the conception of my right hon. Friends when they formed the Labour Government. That is what we meant when we said that we were establishing, for the first time in the history of the country, and almost for the first time in the history of the world, a free National Health Service.
We were taunted for it by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They said that we were deceiving the people in saying that it was free. We did not mean that it was free in that sense. Of course doctors had to be paid. Of course the administrative expenses had to be provided for. Of course the chemicals, drugs, nursing services and all the rest had to be paid for. What we were saying was that this should be regarded as a general national charge payable out of national charges, and not payable out of a specific contribution levied on people who might need the services of the Health Service. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite could never reconcile themselves to that.
After the scheme became law, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite went up and down the country claiming that there had been no better friends of a free National Health Service than the Conservative Party. They showed their support for it, while the Measure went through, by voting solidly and without exception against the Second Reading. They voted on a whole series of Amendments designed to embarrass, cripple and cut down the Service, through a long, difficult and complicated Committee stage. They did the same thing on the Report stage. They fought the Bill tooth

and nail, line by line—almost word by word—and they did a most unusual thing for people claiming that they were in general support of the principle, even voting against the Third Reading.
Then they went to the country. They won two General Elections. When we sought to persuade people to vote against them, and not to give them the powers they are now exercising because they would use them in the way they are now using them, they went into paroxysms of rage and synthetic indignation. They said that there was not a word of truth in it. They had no intention, they said, of making any attack upon the Health Service. They had no intention of increasing the charges. All this was a wicked Socialist lie, designed to prevent people from "voting for prosperity". They won.
The principal Act of 1957, which it is now proposed to make even worse, is not merely a thing about which the electorate has had no opportunity of expressing a view. Far more than that, people have expressed their opposition to it, at the invitation of the Conservative Party and those who are now the Conservative Government. They said to the people, "Vote for us because we are not going to do it". When people vote for them on that basis, it is fair to say that, so far from the people having had no opportunity of approving this Measure, they had, years before it was passed, expressed their opinion against it.

Mr. Gower: No, that is not true.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) says that it is not true. Is it not?

Mr. Gower: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is not being accurate, to put it in that way. He knows perfectly well that the vote in 1955 for the present Government followed, not preceded, the imposition of charges imposed in 1953.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has not been following. He does not even trouble to know what the facts are. I said at the beginning, and nobody challenged me, that the words of the Act are perfectly plain, that a charge was imposed for the first time by the principal Act, namely, the Act of 1957. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying


that I have not stated the position accurately? Of course I have stated it accurately.

Mr. Gower: Prescription charges were put on in 1953.

Mr. Silverman: We are not talking about prescription charges. The hon. Gentleman has not even read the Act.

Mr. Gower: I have.

Mr. Silverman: Then he has not understood it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wishes to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). He will appreciate, as the Committee does, that, in the idiom of these things, what we are discussing today is a contribution. The term "charges" is used, as he suggests, for things like prescriptions and appliances. That is the point that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, but the only thing which the 1957 Act did was to charge a contribution for the first time. What this amending Measure does is to increase that contribution. Before 1957, there was no contribution. The Conservative Party told the electorate that it did not propose to make further charges. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the Conservative Party meant by that that it would not increase the charges but it would, go on to charge a contribution instead, it is a great pity that his party's Election manifesto was not more clearly and honestly drawn. What everybody understood from it was that, first, the Conservative Party would not increase the charges properly so called, and, a fortiori, would not impose new contributory charges, which had never been imposed before.
The hon. Member for Barry has assisted me in establishing my point that the electorate, at the invitation of the Conservative Party, decided in 1955 against this Measure. It decided against the 1957 Measure and, a fortiori, against this Measure. This is a fraud. It is a quite deliberate deceit. It is a betrayal of trust.

Mr. Randall: Without a mandate.

Mr. Silverman: It is more than that. It is an act in direct defiance of the mandate they asked for and obtained. The Minister ought not to smile. When he faces his constituents at the General Election, if he ever does, he will not find that they are much amused by it.
This is part of the Government's general campaign to reduce the purchasing power of ordinary people in any way they can. They do it by raising the charges for babies' milk. They do it by raising the charges for school children's dinners. They do it by raising contributory charges under a whole series of social security Measures. They do it by the Rent Act, and they do it by withdrawing subsidies on food supplies. In every way they do what is their direct intention, as borne out by the Cohen Report. The objective of the Government in this matter is to make it less and less possible for people to have money with which to buy things. That is their remedy for inflation, the only remedy they know. It is exactly what their policy has always been.
It is not as if these extra charges were to supply a special fund out of which the financial burden of the medical services was to be discharged. Nothing of the kind. There is no special fund and there never has been. It is simply and solely what one of my hon. Friends described earlier as a poll tax designed to take money out of the pockets of the poorest so as to relieve the pressure on goods, which is the Government's only remedy for the economic crises in which they find themselves.
How can it be right, in those circumstances, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have the opportunity of fixing an appointed day to begin to collect these charges before the people who gave him his power on the pretence that he would not exercise it for these purposes have had the opportunity of considering the new situation? It may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that these charges are right in themselves. It may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government and hon. Members opposite believe that their policy of dealing with our economic crisis is the right one. Certainly, they have always believed it all the time I have known them. They have never had any other from the days of 1931 onwards—and even before that.
It may well be that they would even try to make a case for saying, "We were right to pledge ourselves not to do it in 1955 and we are also right to do it in 1957 and 1958 in spite of these pledges because of the circumstances obtaining". But if the circumstances have changed, then the trustees must go back to the beneficiaries and ask for new authorities. They must not do it in advance. They must not use a power given them for one purpose in order to achieve the exact opposite of that purpose. This is the act of a fraudulent trustee and will continue to be that unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.
I say to the Government, "Go to the people you have deceived and ask them whether they will condone the deceit. Go to the people to whom you lied and ask them whether they will give you power now to change the situation and to do what you promised not to do. But do not use your last few moments of precarious power to exact a further charge from the pockets of people you promised not to rob."

Dr. King: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) opened the debate and charged the Government with betraying a selection of promises I was reminded of a poster that appeared in the country to the effect that the Conservative Party fought for the social services. It is a poster, I venture to suggest, that that party will never have the impertinence to put on the hoardings again. Indeed, at that time every Election platform asked the question: whom did the Conservatives fight for the social services?
This is a simple Amendment. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) suggested that it was a wrecking Amendment. We simply seek to delay the provisions made in the new Bill until after the electorate has had an opportunity of saying whether it approves of what the Government are doing in this and similar Measures. It is true that we might wait in the hope that another place, which is always interested in the welfare of the poor, might interfere and delay the Bill until the country has had an opportunity of declaring its opinions on Government policy, but we do not think that that is likely.
It may be good to increase the poll tax element in the social service charges.

Within the last twelve or eighteen months the Government have imposed new poll tax elements in the social insurance and the Health Services. If the Government do it three times, then this addition to the poll tax element is no longer a matter of detail. It is not a matter of adding a penny to 8d. and making it 9d. The increase in the poll tax element is becoming so great that we are having not a quantitative charge, but a qualitative charge. Those of us who believe that poll taxes are bad, and that the country will support us in the view that poll taxes put an unfair burden on the poorest, have a right to say to the Government, "You should not levy a poll tax of this heavy nature without getting a mandate from the country to do so". The country may approve.
The hon. Member for Barry thinks that one of the reasons why the Government won the last Election was because of the prescription charges. If he is so confident that this kind of policy is one that will have the backing of the electorate, let him vote with us for the Amendment. There is no urgency for the money. This mean little Bill provides a mean little sum for a mean Government. The amount involved is less than we handed out in largesse to the richest people at Budget time. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and to delay this Measure until the people have had a chance of saying whether they believe in the principles of the Government or not.

Mr. Walker-Smith: At least on this occasion I am not in the paradoxical position in which I was on the last Amendment of having to devote most of my speech to seeking to explain to hon. Members opposite the effect and intention of the Amendment which they had seen fit to put upon the Order Paper. The effect of this Amendment, at least, is clear. Having said that, I have exhausted the praise which I can reasonably and conscientiously bestow upon it.
Although its effect is clear, it is unwarranted, ill-conceived, mischievous and altogether undesirable. Nor has it been improved, I am bound in all honesty to say, by the advocacy of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has also had a different rôle during the discussion of this Amendment from his rôle in the last one. On the last Amend-


ment he did not come into the Committee until nearly the end, but was in no way restrained from making a very long contribution, raising points which most of us thought had already been disposed of. On this occasion he has certainly been here all the time, and he has spoken at great length. However, I must say that the merit and persuasiveness of his argument was in inverse ratio to the length of time taken in expressing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I feel that that is the case, and so do my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman indulged in a great deal of strong and intemperate language, but it was not persuasive advocacy to those who are looking at the Amendment in an objective, reasonable and detached way.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that at this moment he is looking at the matter in an objective and detached way? I assure him that I had no hope whatever that my argument would persuade him.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Then the hon. Gentleman is not disappointed. I am looking at the Amendment in the way in which it is the duty of us all to look at it. The House has come to a decision on the principle of the Bill, and here we are concerned with the question whether its implementation should be deferred for a very protracted period. In regard to that matter, the need and justification for this modest increase in the contribution arises from present circumstances and, indeed, from the past and continuing trend of the mounting liability upon the Exchequer. It was put forward on the basis of present justification and present action both in the Ways and Means Resolution and on Second Reading, and the House approved by majorities of 72 and 56 respectively. I say, therefore, that there is no justification for deferring the implementation of the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: If the Bill is so fully justified, and if all the circumstances surrounding it are so plain, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee what the row in the Cabinet was about?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member must exercise his own very considerable ingenuity in connection with this entirely hypothetical question.
I want to deal with the argument behind the Amendment, as I understand it. If it were not for simple administrative and practical reasons—the preparation of the stamps, and so on—the increases would have come into effect upon the date of the coming into operation of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says that it is entirely at discretion when the appointed day will be. In Acts of Parliament it nearly always is, but if the hon. Member wants some comfort I can tell him that there is no intention of delaying the appointed day. Our intention is to bring the scheme into force at or about the beginning of July. The date is not specified in the Bill because, when making rather complex mechanical preparations, it is unwise to tie oneself to a statutory date which is binding in all circumstances.

Mr. Silverman: I was not criticising the Measure for leaving the Government a free and unfettered discretion to fix the appointed day. I agree that that is the usual way in which the matter is dealt with. What I was afraid of was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now stated, namely, that he would fix the appointed day too soon. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that it is not fixed too soon.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady's Amendment seeks to defer the appointed day for no less than two-and-a-quarter years. I say that there is a need and justification for the Measure, and that it should be deferred only for the minimum time, which is about three months. That is the point between us.
I have examined the precedents showing how matters of charges within the Health Service have been dealt with in the past, from the point of view of their having been imposed upon an appointed day or having come into force immediately. I wanted to see whether there was a deferment of their coming into operation beyond the date of the next General Election, or not. I looked at the two obvious precedents which took place in the days of the Labour Government. First, there was the power to impose charges for prescriptions and, secondly, the power to impose charges in respect of teeth and spectacles.
In the first case, the power derives from Section 16 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949, which went through the House when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was Minister of Health. The Section gave power to make regulations imposing charges for prescriptions, and the power was taken straight away, with effect from the coming into operation of the Act, on 16th December, 1949. There was nothing in that Act to defer the implementation of the power until after a General Election or after any interval at all. The power was taken straight away.
In the second example, which concerns the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) more particularly, the power to make regulations imposing charges for teeth and spectacles derives from Section 1 (3) of the National Health Service Act, 1951. There again the power was taken at once, with effect from the coming into operation of the Act, and not from an appointed day; still less after a deferment, and even still less after a deferment beyond a General Election. It was taken from the coming into operation of the Act on 10th May, 1951.

Mr. Marquand: The difference between those examples and this is that on those occasions there was no difference between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Whether or not there was a difference between the opposite sides of the House, there were acute differences between hon. Members opposite.

Mr. S. Silverman: As there are in the Cabinet now.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman discovered, to his cost, that when a Member of the Labour Party wants to do the right thing he is very severely embarrassed by the opposition of his colleagues, who wish to restrain him. We all have in mind the circumstances of those days. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reminded the House in vivid terms of some of the more colourful passages in the resignation speech of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Where is the Chancellor today?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Where is the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale?

Dr. King: The right hon. and learned Member has not answered my hon. Friend's point about the differences between the situation in those days and that which exists now. In that situation the Opposition were wholeheartedly in support of the charges made by the Government, and they would have liked to see more.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not recall anybody asking for any further charge than was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at that time.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw no distinction at all between a Measure passed with the general support of the House—Government and Opposition alike—and a Measure passed in the teeth of the united and fierce opposition of one side of the House, when it is in Committee?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I explained, and as the hon. Member, with his long experience of Parliament, knows, in dealing with the principle of the Bill we are bound by the decision of the House taken on Second Reading.
On the occasions to which I have referred I have proved that there was no deferment, although in the second case the Parliament concerned was only just over one year old. The charges for teeth and spectacles actually became operative almost immediately after the Bill was passed, on 21st May, 1951.
It has been said that we have no mandate for this charge, and that in our Election manifesto we did not say that we would impose it.

Mr. Silverman: You said the opposite.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I join issue with the hon. Member on that question. Moreover, the 1945 Election manifesto of the Labour Party contained no reference to the fact that they would take power, before another General Election, to impose charges for prescriptions.

Mr. Silverman: We did not then have a National Health Service.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That exactly illustrates the absurdity of the argument. Perhaps the hon. Member will apply his mind to these facts. There was a National


Health Service by 1950, but nothing in the Labour Party Election manifesto of 1950 which said that the party would take power to impose charges for teeth and spectacles. The party opposite did that within just over one year of being returned to power. The Amendment is a matter of sheer humbug and hypocrisy on the part of hon. Members opposite.

Dr. Summerskill: I am shocked at the fact that the Minister has completely avoided the argument. He spent most of his time criticising my hon. Friend for an excellent speech, and then decided to waste time dealing with certain procedural points in which the Committee is not very interested. He then proceeded—and we are accustomed to this sort of thing on the part of hon. Members opposite

when they are short of arguments—to there was charge hon. Members on this side of the Committee with something that was done in the past. I accept all that he has said in that respect, but can he equate that with the fact that during the last two years the Government not only imposed a prescription charge but increased contributions, last year and again now Three charges have been imposed in the last two years.

In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even been courteous enough to apply himself to the arguments which have been adduced, we must divide the Committee.

Question put, That those words there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 201. Noes 245.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
6.10 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Ledger, R. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Marcus


Bacon, Mist Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G.


Baird, J.
Finch, H. J.
McCann, J.


Balfour A.
Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, J. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, D. M.
MacDermot, Niall


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Benson, Sir George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Beswick, Frank
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
McLeavy, Frank


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mahon, Simon


Blenkinsop, A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy


Boyd, T. C.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Messer, Sir F.


Brockway, A. F.
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Healey, Denis
Moody, A. S.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holmes, Horace
Mort, D. L.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Douglas
Moss, R.


Carmichael, J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Moyle, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, F. W.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, T.


Clunie, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, W. J.


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, John


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Pearson, A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pentland, N.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hon A. Creech (Wakefield)
Popplewell, E.


Deer, G.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Prentice, R. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire. W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, A. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.


Dye, S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, H. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John




Redhead, E. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wheeldon, W. E.


Reeves, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, William
Steele, T.
Willey, Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Storehouse, John
Williams, David (Neath)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ross, William
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Royle, C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woof, R. E.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Skeffington, A. M.
Watkins, T. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, D.



Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sorensen, R. W.
West, D. G.
Mr. John Taylor and




Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Aitken, W. T.
Duncan, Sir James
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Alport, C. J. M.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Arbuthnot, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Keegan, D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Ashton, H.
Fell, A.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Atkins, H. E.
Finlay, Graeme
Kimball, M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Kirk, P. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lagden, G. W.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
Leather, E. H. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
Leavey, J. A.


Barter, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leburn, W. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Glover, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Good hart, Philip
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gower, H. R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Llewellyn, D. T.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bingham, R. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Longden, Gilbert


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Green, A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bishop, F. P.
Grimond, J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Body, R. F.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McAdden, S. J.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, A. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hay, John
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bryan, P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R,


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Campbell, Sir David
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas


Cole, Norman
Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)
Mathew, R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maude, Angus


Cooke, Robert C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mawby, R. L.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hornby, R. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Moore, Sir Thomas


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Neave, Airey


Davidson, Viscountess
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hurd, A. R.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Oakshott, H. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, C.


Drayton, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)







Partridge, E.
Sharples, R. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Peel, W.J.
Shepherd, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wade, D. W.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Speir, R. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pott, H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wall, Patrick


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Ramsden, J. E.
Storey, S.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Rawlinson, Peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Redmayne, M,
Studholme, Sir Henry
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ridsdale, J. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wills, C. (Bridgwater)


Rippon, A. G. F.
Teeling, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Temple, John M.
Woollam, John Victor


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)



Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)
Mr. Hughes-Young and


Scott-Miller. Cmdr. R.
Thorn-on-Kemsley, Sir Colin
 Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. I want to make a protest or, behalf of hon. Members who are serving on Standing Committees at present sitting upstairs, and who, in effect, are not being allowed by the Government to take part in the debate in this Chamber on this Clause. This Clause deals with vital matters, but we are being prevented from dealing with them now because

Standing Committees are now sitting upstairs. I would ask you, Sir Gordon, whether some arrangements could be made whereby the large number of hon. Members who are in Standing Committees can be acquainted with the progress of proceedings in this Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot take cognisance of that matter.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 204.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
6.20 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Aitken, W. T.
Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Graham, Sir Fergus


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooke, Robert
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)


Arbuthnot, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Green, A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grimond, J.


Ashton, H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Atkins, H. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gurden, Harold.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Barber, Anthony
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Barlow, Sir John
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Barter, John
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Drayson, G. B.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bingham, R. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Black, C. W.
Elliott, R. W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Body, R. F.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boothby, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hornby, R. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fell, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Horobin, Sir Ian


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craighton)
Freeth, Denzil
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J-


Bryan, P.
Gammans, Dame Ann Muriel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hurd, A. R.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Campbell, Sir David
Glover, D.
Hyde, Montgomery


Cary, Sir Robert
Godber, J. B.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry




Iremonger, T. L.
Mathew, R.
Shepherd, William


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Maude, Angus
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Mawby, R. L.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Medllcott, Sir Frank
Speir, R. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Joseph, Sir Keith
Moore, Sir Thomas
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Keegan, D.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Storey, S.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Neave, Airey
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kimball, M.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kirk, P. M.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Lagden, G. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Temple, John M.


Leavey, J. A.
Osborne, C.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Leburn, W. C.
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Partridge, E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Peel, W. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Longden, Gilbert
Pott, H. P.
Wade, D. W.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


McAdden, S. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ramsden, J. E.
Wall, Patrick


McKibbin, A. J,
Rawlinson, Peter
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Roper, Sir Harold
Woollam, John Victor


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R.
Mr. Hughes-Young


Marshall, Douglas
Sharples, R. C.
and Mr. Gibson-Watt.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Coldrick, W.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hastings, S.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hayman, F. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Healey, Denis


Awbery, S. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.


Baird, J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Holmes, Horace


Balfour, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Houghton, Douglas


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Deer, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benson, Sir George
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Beswick, Frank
Diamond, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N.
Hunter, A. E.


Blackburn, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Blenkinsop, A.
Dye, S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Blyton, W. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Janner, B.


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Boyd, T. C.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Brookway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Foot, D. M.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Burke, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Burton, Miss F. E.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, C.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Greenwood, Anthony
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Carmichael, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
King, Dr. H. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Ledger, R, J.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lewis, Arthur


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Lindgren, G. S.


Clunie, J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Marcus







Logan, D. G.
Parker, J.
Stonehouse, John


McCann, J.
Paton, John
Stones, W. (Consett)


MacColl, J. E.
Pearson, A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


MacDermot, Niall
Pentland, N.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


McGhee, H. G.
Popplewell, E.
Sylvester, G. O.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Prentice, R. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McLeavy, Frank
Price, j. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mahon, Simon
Probert, A. R.
Tomney, F.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rankin, John
Watkins, T. E.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Redhead, E. C.
Weitzman, D.


Mason, Roy
Reeves, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, William
West, D. G.


Messer, Sir F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willey, Frederick


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.)
Royle, C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm.S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mort, D. L.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Moss, R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Winterbottom, Richard


Oliver, G. H.
Skeffington, A. M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oswald, T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Woof, R. E.


Owen, W. J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sorensen, R. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. John Taylor and


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTI TUTED IN FIRST SCHEDULE TO NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRI BUTIONS ACT, 1957.)

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, column 1, to leave out "70" and to insert "65".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in page 3, line 12, column 1, leave out "65" and insert "60"; the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in line 13, column 1, leave out from the beginning to end of line 14; and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), in line 26, at the end to add:

11. Employed men over the age of 65 1s. 5d.
12. Employed women over the age of 60 1s. 1d.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir Gordon, I think that that would be for the convenience of the Committee. It would mean dealing with the greater contribution payable by employed men as well as

the rate of contribution payable by employed women. I take it that, as we shall be discussing so many Amendments together, it will be possible to have more than one Division at the end, if we think fit?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed to Divisions on the first and second of the Amendments if that would meet the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. Houghton: There is no humbug or hypocrisy about the Amendment which I wish to submit. It is an Amendment after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own heart. It is practical, it is objective and I hope that it can be argued with moderation.
I have always said that I do not like to apply the term "poll tax" to a social service contribution. Certainly I do not like it in connection with a National Insurance contribution, because it is directly linked with benefits, and benefits depend upon contributions and contribution records. This is a different kind of contribution. It ought never to have been given the respectable title of contribution, because the National Health Service contribution is unrelated to benefits. It has no connection whatever with the rights of the individual contributor or non-contributor to the benefits of the Health Service. That is where it differs fundamentally from the National Insurance contribution.
Here, if a person deliberately evades the payment of a National Health Service contribution, it does not disqualify him from the full benefits of the scheme. That was made clear at the time of the introduction of the increased contribution in the Act of last year. That alone exposes this contribution to serious criticism. On the whole I think people who pay genuine contributions expect them to be related to their title to benefit and, as I say, I believe this is a convincing reason why this should never have been called a contribution. It is in fact a tax, but it is not a tax levied on the community as a whole; still less is it a tax which is graduated to assumed ability to pay.

Mr. William Shepherd: But if I make a contribution to a charity, I do not necessarily benefit from that charity.

Mr. Houghton: These are matters of opinion, but on the whole I think that, in our system of taxation, extra-budgetary levies in respect of social services are generally based on the use of the term "contribution" in relation to entitlement to benefits. Since this is so closely connected with the National Insurance contribution, my criticism is the more pointed for that.
I was saying that a person who deliberately evades contributions is not in any way disqualified from benefit. It is true that one cannot easily evade the National Health Service contribution without evading the National Insurance contribution, because they are rivetted together and covered by the same stamp, and there are severe penalties attaching to non-payment of National Insurance contribution. If ever the sins of a contributor were visited on the widow, there is a clear example of it in the penalties for the evasion of the payment of National Insurance contribution.
This Amendment relates to one aspect of what I think is the inequity of this contribution. The general principle is that the contribution to the National Health Service shall be paid by all persons paying, or liable to pay, a National Insurance contribution, so that the liability to pay towards the National Health Service is put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who contribute for National Insurance, and no others.

That is a serious inequity. It discriminates for this purpose against all those who are contributors under another scheme. In connection with the people who reach retirement age there is an especial unfairness about this contribution. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule the Committee will see that the proposed contribution of 1s. 10½d. is to be paid by:
Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment.
So here we find that a man who has reached the age of 65 and a woman who has reached the age of 60—women are dealt with lower down in the Schedule—and who have retired have no liability to pay the National Health Service contribution, for the simple reason that they have no liability to pay the National Insurance contribution. But a man or woman who postpones retirement, and who is under the obligation to pay full contributions under the National Insurance scheme, must in order to earn the increments to the pension, pay the National Health Service contribution in addition to the National Insurance contribution.
Here is a special levy on those who postpone retirement. It may be argued that those who do so, and who will therefore gain a higher rate of pension, should pay contributions during the period of postponed retirement, since by paying those additional contributions they are entitled to the extra pension. But the conditions under which the extra pension may be earned are very rigid. There is no credit for sickness or unemployment in the case of a person who has postponed retirement. The twenty-five contributions must be paid; there are no credits given. So, in this respect, the person who postpones retirement pays contributions under stricter conditions than the one who has not reached retirement age and is contributing in the normal way.
I am not quarrelling with that at the moment. I fully understand that a person who has postponed retirement, and who thereby hopes to earn a higher pension, cannot earn it merely by going sick or being unemployed for lengthy periods during the time of postponement. Again, it is something which is related directly to contributions paid. Why, however, should


this additional tax be put upon them? Why should a person who postpones retirement, and who pays contributions in order to earn the additional pension, be put under this imposition when a person who has reached the same age and has retired has no similar contribution to pay. I see no reason why, because of that, he should be caught by the National Health Service contribution.
A person who retires and who then re-enters full-time employment without exercising his rights conceded by recent legislation, need not re-enter insurance. He can allow the earnings rule to reduce or even to extinguish his retirement pension, and he can continue in full employment, earning full wages and liable to neither the National Insurance contribution nor the National Health Service contribution. I see nothing fair in that. Of course, it is true that the man who, once retired and without reentering insurance, goes back to work and earns more than is permitted, without a reduction of his pension and whose pension may be completely extinguished by his earnings, is not earning increments for his pension, but, then, he is not paying for them.
That is why the Amendment seeks to relieve all men over 65 and all women over 60 from the payment of this additional contribution. It surprises me that this matter was not debated at the time of the original Act. It seems not to have been, but this is a point which the Committee should now notice. Although not covered by the Amendment, a similar anomaly arises in connection with married women who may opt out of paying the National Insurance contribution if they do not think it to their advantage to pay for a pension in their own right. But the married woman, because of circumstances of her own, probably connected with the age relationship between herself and husband, who may consider it necessary to contribute to the National Insurance Fund, has at the same time to contribute to the National Health Service, whereas another married woman who has opted out of the National Insurance contribution does not have to pay the National Health Service contribution.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not regard this argument

as humbug and hypocrisy. It is directed against the fundamental unfairness of the scheme. Why should those who are paying National Insurance contributions—and those alone—pay National Health Service contributions, and why should the differences between liability to National Insurance contributions determine differences in liability to pay National Health Service contributions? The Act is riddled with unfairness where an additional tax has, for the purposes of the Government, been riveted to a National Insurance contribution which has nothing whatever to do with the National Health Service contribution.
Among men and women of the same ages there are three sets of people. In the case of men, there are those over 70 who pay neither National Insurance contributions nor National Health Service contributions and who can earn as much as they like, because they are beyond the effect of the earnings rule. There are men between the ages of 65 and 70 who have retired, but who may re-enter full-time employment and be subject to the operation of the earnings rule, but who will pay neither National Insurance contributions nor National Health Service contributions. Finally, there are men between the ages of 65 and 70 who have not retired, who have postponed retirement, but who pay National Insurance contributions in order to earn a higher pension and who are taxed to pay the National Health Service contribution.
6.45 p.m.
Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been searching his vocabulary to find suitable words to express himself, I call this stuff and nonsense. It cannot be justified on any equitable basis of taxation according to the principles which we have adopted in this country. When a contribution of a modest amount is first levied, it may be small in relation to the resources of the great mass of the contributors and it may be thought unnecessary to graduate it according to incomes, earnings, or assumption of ability to pay. After all, if we are asked to pay 6d. we do not trouble to modify it for particular income groups and so on. We say that 6d. is something which everybody can pay.
However, the Government then begin to build it up and up and it becomes


6s., 7s., 8s., 9s., 9s. 11d. and then another 6d. is added to make it 10s. 5d. That is a contribution very different from the modest beginnings of the National Insurance contribution and its forebear, the National Health Insurance contribution prior to the 1946 Act. We seek to put this matter right and to deal with this narrow grievance. There are other aspects of the contribution and how it depends on other classes of contributors with which it is not now my purpose to deal.
We ask that the Government reconsider this aspect of the scheme. We are now adding to the original scheme of last year and following the same principles. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, we cannot be sure that there is not another increase in the contribution to come later. We have heard certain principles of financing the National Health Service which have been enunciated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and which will mean further increases in the National Health Service contribution. In fact, I regard that as almost inevitable—by reference to some of the things which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the financing of the whole Service and the relationship between the amount of the contribution and that to be borne by the Exchequer and so on, all related to what Beveridge had in mind, or plans of sources of income incorporated in the original National Insurance Act. I am certain that a further increase in contribution is to come.
That is all the more reason why we should re-examine the principles upon which the National Health Service contribution is based. I have drawn attention, I hope reasonably, to what seems to us to be an unfair feature of the scheme. Unfortunately, the rules of order preclude us from doing more than amend the Bill and that explains why we cannot go the whole hog and seek to amend the Schedule of the original Act. The evil of this Bill—perhaps "mischief" is less offensive—is that it says that it is a Bill to increase the rates of National Health Service contributions and, as was said on Second Reading, to give some kind of flimsy authority to the Government to go on with it.
Therefore, during the Committee stage, we have to adjust ourselves to the rules of order, which deny us the opportunity

of moving an Amendment which would go counter to the whole purpose of the Bill. Nor can we amend the original Act even in the particular manner that I have prescribed. I mention that so that there should be no misunderstanding as to our attitude in the matter. It might otherwise be thought that having swallowed the camel, we were now straining at the gnat; that having swallowed the 1s. 4½d, we were now boggling at the 6d. I wish it to be made plain that we are objecting to the whole of the contribution, although we can only seek to amend the addition proposed in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will give us a reasoned reply to this, because, as far as I can see, this is a matter which has not been fully debated before. There is nothing, I suggest, to preclude the right hon. and learned Gentleman from accepting modifications of the National Health Service contribution to meet these criticisms, even though that departs, for certain people, from the main principle of the original contribution—that it is an adhesive to the stamp of the National Insurance contribution.
I trust, therefore, that these arguments will carry some weight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know how impervious he is to argument. When he was saying, a little earlier this afternoon, that we on these benches were sometimes prevented from doing what was right because we were restrained by forces within our party, I was moved to ask him whether in this case he was doing right or whether he had been restrained. We are still without a complete understanding of why this Bill comes to the House at all.
I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading on that matter, but it is unfortunate that we are discussing this Bill in blinkers. We have neither seen the shape of the Budget nor the Estimates for the Health Service. We are asked to take everything on trust, that it is clearly desirable, that it is justified and that a united Government have brought this before a united party for the consideration of the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as we do that that is not the case.
There have been ructions in the Cabinet over the purpose of this Bill or matters connected therewith. There must


have been; what else could there have been a row about, were it not for the belief on the part of some in the Cabinet that this was the wrong way to reduce budgetary expenditure, that this was a fraud on the public, that this was a bogus reduction in national expenditure, a mere transfer from budgetary to extra-budgetary taxation, and the word taxation is clearly applicable to the National Health Service contribution.

Mr. Prentice: I rise briefly to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I feel that he has explained to the Committee in great detail and very clearly the anomalies created by the Act of last year, which are liable to be increased by the Bill now before us, as between those who postpone retirement and those who elect to retire.
I wish to add one other point, which is that the effect of this will be to discourage people from postponing their retirement and I believe that to be a bad thing from the point of view of public policy. I feel that when a man reaches the age of 65 or a woman reaches the age of 60, the question whether to retire or not is a personal one, and it is not for any of us to lay down general rules about it. Some people dread retirement. They love their jobs, and they dread the idea of not having that job to go to. Others are "fed up" with their jobs and want to follow some hobby of theirs and enjoy extra leisure time. Into these personal considerations certain financial considerations are bound to come, such as the question of wages, and so on, but the State ought not to interfere and put a special levy into the scales to discourage people from doing what otherwise would be the best for themselves.
The point is that the Act of last year did bring a special levy into the scale. All people on retirement enjoy the services of the National Health Service. Therefore, it is clearly unfair to those who elect to postpone their retirement to have to pay this special contribution, whereas those who elected to retire, even if they have gone on working, should escape from it. It is unfair, and the unfairness increases when extra charges are put on. For these reasons, I feel that the case before the Committee is un-

answerable and that the Amendment should be accepted by the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): Let me start by saying that I entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he began his speech by saying that there was no humbug or hypocrisy about this Amendment. I certainly accept that, and I must say, having heard all the speeches this afternoon, that the hon. Member put the case for it in a most persuasive and reasonable manner.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with the point of principle which was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I realise that he could have gone into a lot of figures and cases, but it was the question whether this group of people to whom he has referred are being unfairly treated, as compared with others which he specified, when they are obliged to pay the National Health Service contribution at all. That was his point.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the payment of the National Health Service contribution is, in any case, linked, under the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, with the payment of National Insurance contributions. The two go together, and that is the principle and the framework within which we work. It may be that at certain points it operates unfairly, but I submit that in a limited Bill of this character, which simply has the limited purpose of increasing the contributions, we cannot elect a piecemeal approach to this problem and start tinkering, as it were, with the principle on which the whole thing has evolved.
I realise that, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, that is rather cold comfort, but perhaps I could say to him that the future of the National Health Service contribution—and some hon. Members have expressed fears that it might rise again and that kind of thing—is, of course, bound up with the main Insurance contribution. As the Committee knows, we are at present reviewing the financial basis of the National Insurance scheme. Clearly, it would not be sensible to attempt to deal with National Health Service contributions, relatively so much smaller, in advance of the decision about the main National Insurance


contribution. That is about as far as I can go on the point of principle, but I have devoted time to it because I realise that it is the matter which has mainly inspired and guided the hon. Member in the remarks which he has made to the Committee today.
7.0 p.m.
The object of these Amendments is to reduce the National Health Service contributions by employed men over 65 and employed women over 60, who have not retired, from 1s. 10½d. and 1s. 4½d., which is what is proposed by the Bill to 1s. 5d. and 1s. 1d. I realise that the rules of order imposed certain restrictions on hon. Gentlemen opposite and that, had they been able, they would not have accepted the ½d. increase which they had to include in the figures in their Amendments.
The principal argument urged on the specific as against the general case was well made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who urged that it was a deterrent. He said that although the charge is not very great in terms of money, ought we to apply it to people at a stage in their lives when it is in the national interest that they should, if possible, remain in employment? Was it not unwise to do anything which might have the effect of discouraging them? That is a fair point, but I wonder how far this argument about disincentives may properly be taken.
People go to work after retirement age for three main reasons; first, because they need the money, secondly, because they like their work—and that is a good reason—and thirdly, that they wish to earn extra increments on their pensions. Given those three reasons—and one could think of others—I cannot imagine that this 6d. a week is a real deterrent, especially when one reflects that the number of years that it is likely people will have to pay it is restricted. We could argue forever about the precise point where an additional charge becomes a deterrent and where it is only an irritation if one remains at work because of the additional money secured, or because one likes the job, or because of the additional pension.

Mr. Houghton: I suggest that we call this a "nuclear increase," and then we shall know that it is a deterrent.

Mr. Thompson: If I accepted that suggestion, I might get into trouble in following up the argument.
There are other reasons which I think hon. Members can guess at which do not dispose me to accept the Amendment. There is the administrative aspect, the question of the creation of a special class of persons within the scheme, and the fact that this Amendment brings odd halfpennies into the combined contribution. But I shall not make too much of the administrative inconvenience, because we are all agreed that if a thing is just and right we should not allow administrative inconvenience to prevent us from passing the right legislation. But for the more substantial reasons, which, I hope, I outlined earlier, rather than because of any reasons of administrative inconvenience, I find it impossible to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman earlier, and to which I replied, and if he feels that honour is satisfied and that this rather limited Bill is not the sort of vehicle in which to make a great change in principle, I am not unhopeful that he may wish to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: I do not think that we can pass from this discussion leaving the impression that we accept the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, because to me they seemed completely unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) had to say about men and women who are entitled to retire, but postpone retirement and continue working. He said, no doubt rightly, that when they do this it is because they are attracted by the wages they expect to receive, or by the satisfaction of doing more work—and we are all becoming increasingly aware that if we keep on working we are likely to live longer—or they are attracted by the increments which they can add to their pension when eventually they retire.
I do not dispute that description of the influences which may weigh with a person in these groups, but I do dispute the argument that another 6d. a week on their contribution would make no difference to their choice. That seems to be an argument which completely confutes everything ever written by


economists about the relationship between money and what is obtained for it. The economic theory, both modern and ancient, at any rate from the time of Jevons onwards, has always laid emphasis on the marginal utility of what is to be demanded. I cannot doubt that in this matter the doctrine of marginal utility applies as effectively as in any other sphere.
The person who is old and, therefore, by definition less able to work, who is a little more feeble than when he was younger, has to make a difficult decision, whether to continue working, and for how long. In making his calculations about how far it is worth while to get another 1s. 6d. added to his pension he considers the discomfort of getting out of bed early on cold mornings and all the things which weigh when people make up their minds about whether they want to go to work or not when they do not really have to. To a person making such a decision the marginal cost of the extra effort he has to make weighs very strongly indeed, and to him 6d. would be much more important than to anyone else. In any case, he has probably calculated this margin already, and the extra 6d. could tip him over to the point of saying that it was not worth while and the bargain was not good enough. When discussing the National Insurance contribution previously I have said that it is already doubtful whether the bargain is good enough; whether the amount receivable at the end is good enough in relation to the amount sacrificed to carry on work after 65. I think that this additional 6d. will prove a very serious matter.
The part of the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary which surprised hon. Members on this side of the Committee most was the statement that the Health Service contribution is linked with the National Health contribution. This is, indeed, a new doctrine. Last year, when we had before us the Bill to institute a National Insurance Service contribution for the first time, it was made clear that this was a separate contribution and not related to National Insurance; that it was different altogether, something which people were to pay for the Service only, and that it could be devised on a somewhat different principle.
Now we are told that it is inextricably linked. "The two go together," said the

Parliamentary Secretary. He went on to say, "This is only a small Measure to increase the National Health Service contribution. We cannot adopt a piecemeal approach. We cannot tinker with the structure." In other words, what the Government told us, not a year ago, in 1957, is changed. There were to be two entirely separate contributions, one for insurance and one related solely to the needs of the Service and under the responsibility of the Minister of Health.
That Minister has been present in all these debates. The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was responsible only for issuing the stamps and seeing that they were put on the books. The Minister of Health had the money to spend for the Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution, we are now told, is not going to be different. Last year, it was to be an entirely different thing, which was to bring home to the people the cost of the Health Service. Now it is to be indissolubly linked with insurance.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the future of the Health Service contribution was bound up with the future of the National Insurance scheme. It was good news to us, to hear that the Government were taking our advice and were reviewing the structure of the National Insurance scheme. No doubt they are beginning to realise, as we told them in the last debate on the scheme, that they cannot go along on the flat rate basis. No doubt they are working out proposals which will eventually result in a plan for a graduated system of contributions. As I said in that debate, the sooner they do it the better. We can then have a grand debate of the nation on the subject.
To say, after all that has been said in previous debates on the subject, that the contribution which we are now discussing is indissolubly linked with the insurance structure, is very surprising, because we were told only five months ago that it was to be entirely different. The flat rate was said to be quite a reasonable and sensible method by which to collect, because it related to a Health Service in which the benefits to be received were in a way equal for all, in that they depended entirely upon the state of health. Therefore, it was justifiable to have a flat-rate contribution. Now we


are told that it is linked with the National Insurance scheme which may be on a graduated basis. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary has thought up an argument on his own, quite separate from the arguments of his right hon. and learned Friend and quite ignoring what his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Health, the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), told us five months ago.
We find that there has not been a real answer to the admirably presented pleas by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby in the sort of explanation which is now thrown at us, in the hint

that the whole basis is to be changed. The very arguments which were used to try to persuade us to accept the original insurance contribution have now been abandoned and substituted by quite different ones. We are, therefore, obliged to divide the Committee. We feel that our arguments have not been met in the least, and that the arguments put up against us have no value, in the light of what was previously said.

Question put, That "70" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 194.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Aitken, W. T.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Alport, C. J. M.
Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joseph, Sir Keith


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Errington, Sir Eric
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Arbuthnot, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Keegan, D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Fell, A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Ashton, H.
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Atkins, H. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kirk, P. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lagden, G. W.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
Leather, E. H. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Leavey, J. A.


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Leburn, w. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Glover, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Godber, J. B.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert


Bingham, R. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S-)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Bishop, F. P.
Green, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Body, R. F.
Grimond, J.
McAdden, S. J.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McKibbin, Alan


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gurden, Harold
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bryan, P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Campbell, Sir David
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Channon, Sir Henry
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Marshall, Douglas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mathew, R.


Clarke, Brig. Terenee (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maude, Angus


Cole, Norman
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, R. L.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Cooke, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Holt, A. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hornby, R. P.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Neave, Airey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Nicholls, Harmar


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Currie, G. B. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Osborne, C.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hyde, Montgomery
Page, R. G.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T. L.
Partridge, E.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, W. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.




Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vane, W. M. F.


Pott, H. P.
Speir, R. M.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Powell, J. Enoch
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wade, D. W.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Ramsden, J. E.
Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Rawlinson, Peter
Storey, S.
Wall, Patrick


Redmayne, M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, w. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Ridsdale, J. E.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Rippon, A C. F.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Teeling, W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Temple, John M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wood, Hon. R.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John Victor


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, S.)



Sharples, R. C.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Mr. Lego and Mr. Brooman-White.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Messer, Sir F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.


Benson, Sir George
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, S.
Oliver, G. H.


Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Parker, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, John


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, N.


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Popplewell, E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, A. R.


Burke, W. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Randall, H. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, B.
Rankin, John


Carmichael, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Redhead, E. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William


Chapman, W. D,
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clunie, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M,
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Ledger, R. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke. N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
McCann, J.
Stonehouse, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch)
MacColl, J. E.
Stones. W. (Consett)


Dye, S.
MacDermot, Niall
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McChee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor,-Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Foot, D. M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Viant, S. P.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.







Weitzman, D.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Woof, R. E.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


West, D. G.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Zilliacus, K.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)



Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Willey, Frederick
Winter-bottom, Richard
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.


Williams, David (Neath)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

The Chairman: I suggest that with the next Amendment, in line 10, column I. after "including", to insert:
men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds and",
might also be discussed the following Amendments:
In line 13, column 1, after "including", to insert:
women whose wages for the relative contributions week do not exceed ten pounds and";

In line 26, at the end to add:


11. Employed men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds
1s.
5d.

In line 26, at the end to add:


12. Employed women whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds
1s.
1d.

Mr. Marquand: I think that arrangement would be satisfactory to the Committee. While I am on my feet, Mr. MacPherson, may I draw attention to the fact that the numbers in the last Division seemed to be lower than before? I am told that simultaneously a Division took place in a Committee upstairs. I am afraid that you will say, as your predecessors have said, that there is nothing you can do about it, but I hope you will report to the proper quarters the great difficulty in which this Committee has been placed throughout its sitting today by reason of the fact that another Committee is sitting at the same time.

The Chairman: The right hon. Member is right in the first part of his comment. The procedure is laid down, and there is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, column 1, after "including", to insert:
men whose wages for the relative contribution week do not exceed ten pounds and".
We on this side of the Committee feel that by these continuous increases in contributions the lower-paid worker is being penalised. When we consider the increases in contributions which have been made by the present Administration during the past few months we can see very strong evidence in support of our case in this Amendment.
There was a 6d. increase, then a 2s. increase for National Insurance, and now there is another 6d. increase. The lower-paid worker is now paying 2s. 6d. per week increase, and this Bill, unless it is amended, will impose another 6d. increase. Since this Administration came into power insurance has gone up by leaps and bounds. The insurance contribution was 5s. 1d. in 1951 and, if this Bill becomes law, it will go up to 9s. lid. for men and 8s. for women. Since 1951 there has been an increase of 4s. 10d. Those in the lower income groups and lower wage groups have almost 10s. a week taken from them, and that is far too heavy a sum.
The argument of the Minister of Health on Second Reading and the Financial Secretary on the Ways and Means Resolution was that employees could afford the increase because the average was £12 11s. a week. It was unfair for the Government to say that the average wage is £12 11s. a week. It is like taking a group who dine at the Ritz Hotel or the Savoy Hotel, a group who dine in an industrial or factory canteen, or even in the Tea Room of this House, adding them together, and then saying that that is the average amount a person can afford to spend on a meal.
I can give the Minister many examples of several millions of men and women who are earning under £10 a week. There must be 60 per cent., or 70 per cent., or even more, women workers who receive less than £10 a week.
7.30 p.m.
There is the agricultural worker. His wage, settled by trade union negotiation, is £7 10s. a week. That means that he gets £5 Is. less than the average quoted by the Minister. The male shop assistant in London gets £9 a week, and £8 10s. a week in the provinces, so that the one gets £3 11s. and the other £4 1s. below the average stated by the Minister when defending these increased contributions. I could also quote railway workers, nurses, packers, porters, clerical workers—many millions of employees who today


still receive under £10 a week. Therefore it is unfair for the Minister to quote £12 11s. as an average wage.
This Amendment, if accepted, would call a halt to increases in the contributions of the lower-paid workers. It is a modest Amendment, by which we seek to get away, for those men and women not earning £10 a week, from the flat-rate principle. It gives the Minister the chance to do that, and I therefore hope that he will accept it.

Dr. King: I want briefly to support the Amendment moved so persuasively and simply by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter). There are three ways in which to pay for our National Health Service. One is by direct taxation, one is by indirect taxation, and the third is by the poll tax contained in this Bill. The difference between direct taxation and the other two is that, whereas the direct taxation is graded according to income, rich and poor have to pay the others equally. Indirect taxes can be left out, because we need not pay them if we are prepared to go without the things on which there is a purchase or similar tax.
We are left, then, with the poll tax, and the worst feature of that tax is that everyone is concerned—the low-paid worker and the Cabinet Minister, the poor widow—about whom I hope to address the Committee later on—and the richest "star," the chief officer in the civic centre and the humblest clerk, the general and the private. All pay their 6d., but it is a different 6d. The 6d. paid by the millionaire is nothing compared with the 6d. paid by the poorest people. That is why this is a simple, honest-to-God Amendment. It seeks to exclude from the Bill all the lowest-paid workers. The Minister may cavil at the £10 limit we have fixed and say that, though he accepts the humanist principle put forward, the limit should be higher—or lower, perhaps.
Let us consider what the married man earning £10 a week has to pay out of his weekly income. He has to pay rent for his house. That has increased, and may have increased savagely if the man is unfortunate enough to be the tenant of a decontrolled house. He has to buy food for the family. The cost of that

has steadily increased. He has to provide his household with coal, gas and electricity. That has increased steadily in the last two years. He has to provide clothing for his family and for himself. The cost of that, too, has gone up. The meals for his children in school have gone up.
On top of all those, one would hope that any respectable British citizen doing an honest week's work should have something out of his income to provide for holidays and insurance, and to provide, as indeed he must, for his trade union subscriptions. In addition, he previously had to find about 6s. 9d. per week for insurance charges. Unless modified by this Amendment, the Schedule will mean that in the last twelve months his health and insurance charges will have gone up from 6s. 9d. to 9s. 11d.
I suggest that this is an unfair burden on the poorest workers. It is true that the Amendment gives them very little—merely 6d. a week—but it gives it to those to whom it means very much. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.

Miss Jennie Lee: This Amendment represents for hon. Members on this side only a very simple holding operation, but although it is modest, I fear that there will be very little response from the Government benches. It seems almost impossible for the Government to understand that when first the Health Service was introduced we added to the dignity and status of our country all over the world. There were those who looked rather wistfully towards us and asked, "Is it possible that there can be a spirit of gentleness and a spirit of fair play so widespread in a nation that the whole of that nation is willing to carry the burden of maintaining a Health Service?"
I support this Amendment, but I should like it to go very much further. I do not believe in the insurance principle being applied to the Health Service. I believe that the just and, in the long run, the best thing financially, as well as in every other way, is for the whole of the Health Service to be carried by the Exchequer. However, that goes rather beyond this Amendment.
I am afraid that I am rather without hope of getting any response—although I shall be delighted to get a pleasant


surprise—from the benches opposite. All that we on this side can do, therefore, is to make the country aware that there are some Members of the House of Commons who understand what a frightening thing it is when these extra pennies and sixpences and shillings keep piling up on a small weekly wage.
It is doubly frightening to find these extra charges being imposed when, at the same time, whenever there is illness, prescriptions have to be bought. This has been a very hard winter. Very few homes have not had sickness, colds or more serious illnesses for young and old, and I want the Minister to understand that it can all be extremely worrying and frightening.
I see it as most undignified as well as unjust for a great nation like this to act in this way when it could keep great, and be greater still, if it would only spend its money sensibly and not in some of the crazy ways in which it is now spending it. This is a nation that has all the intelligence to know that vast savings could be made on the Health Service far beyond the scraping represented by the charges we are discussing. Again and again, we have pointed out that those things could be done. There is a great racket in patent medicines, not in the way they are being prescribed, but in their cost.
There are exciting and new things that could be done to develop and improve the Health Service, but instead of having the guts to do it, instead of really caring about the poor and the sick, all this miserable Government can do is to start taking a few more coppers out of the pockets of the very poorest people.

Mr. Prentice: This Amendment goes to the heart of our objection to the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) about the Health Service, the principles it enshrines, and the impact it has made on the world. The scheme embodies two great principles. The first is that those who are well should help to look after those who are sick. That is a principle which we established, and it is one from which there has been progressive departure by increasing the charges on medicines, appliances, and so on. The other principle is that people should pay for the Service according to their means, that those better off should

pay more than those worse off. The Bill now before us is one of a series which departs from those principles, and that is why we press our Amendment.
This theme entered into many of the speeches on the Money Resolution and the Second Reading debate. I listened to a number of speeches which hon. Members opposite made on the those occasions, and read those that I did not hear delivered, and it seemed to be that hon. Gentlemen were advancing four arguments, all of which can be shot down. I propose now to show how they can be so shot down. The first argument is to say that all that is proposed here is an extra 6d. a week—or 4d. for women or 2d. for young people—and that in itself is insignificant. We are fighting the Measure because it is part of a policy which is being applied by stages.
I entered the House less than a year ago, early last summer, and at that time the weekly insurance contribution for a male worker over 18 was 6s. 9d. a week. This is the third Bill to have come before the House during the very short time since then, and the cumulative effect of those three Bills has been to raise the weekly contribution from 6s. 9d. to 9s. 11d., an increase of nearly 60 per cent. in less than a year. It has had a tremendous impact upon the people with the lowest wages.
The second argument which is continually advanced from the benches opposite is that average earnings in this country are between £12 and 13 a week. This obsession with average earnings is irrelevant to the objections we make. We are not arguing, at least not strongly arguing, on behalf of those with average earnings or more than average earnings. We are arguing on behalf of those with less than average earnings, on behalf of men who are trying to keep a family on £7 10s. or £8 a week.
There are many women workers earning considerably less than that, widows or those whose husbands, perhaps, have left them, women faced with the necessity of keeping their families. I mentioned just now the extent of the increase for men. For women, in the same period, the contribution has risen from 5s. 6d. a week to 8s. or it will be 8s. if this Bill comes into operation. That is a tremendous increase for women who may be earning only £5 or £6 a week.
The third argument regularly coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite is based upon their obsession with earnings rather than wage rates. They are always emphasising that people can earn more than their basic wage through overtime, and so on. The fact is that millions of workers can do nothing of the kind, and have no opportunity to do so. Indeed, with the present trend of trade, the number of those able to do so is growing less all the time. It is, therefore, quite unfair to take that into account.

Colonel Tufton Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that there was no basic wage in 1946 when the 4s. 11d. stamp was introduced? Is that his argument, or have I got it wrong?

Mr. Prentice: I share the view, expressed many times, that we are becoming a little tired of the constant attempts by hon. Gentlemen opposite to go back to comparisons with 1946 and 1950. It is not my function, if I may say so, to defend things then; they may be right or wrong. I was not a Member of the House at the time.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend might like to be reminded that, in 1946, there was no contribution towards the Health Service.

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to defend the Government, they should direct their remarks to what is happening here and now, in modern conditions.
The fourth argument that they advance implies that no account need be taken of family circumstances, of the number of children a man may have or the number of his dependents. So far as the Health Service is paid for by direct taxation, those things are taken care of, perhaps in a rough and ready fashion, in the Income Tax system; but this Bill makes no distinction between a bachelor and a man with a wife and four children to look after.
The fact is that, today, millions of people are living in a quite considerable degree of poverty. Hon. Members opposite have become obsessed with the idea that, as they put it, people have "never had it so good". They ignore all the

factors which have crept into post-war life, particularly under this Government—the high cost of housing, the burden of trying to pay a post-war council rent, perhaps, or, even worse, the burden. which so many have, of trying to maintain mortgage payments on homes they have tried to buy with interest rates as they are now. There are many factors of that kind which mean that, in millions of families, there is a struggle to make ends meet. There is a constant worry about how to get shoes repaired, or buy clothes.
I remember reading, in a book on the life of Ernest Bevin, of a remark he made in the 'thirties, that for many of his people it was a tragedy when a breakfast cup was broken. There are very many families today to whom that still applies, particularly large families living in post-war houses, when the wage earner earns below the average.
Our principle is that the Health Service should be paid for according to the ability of people to pay. This Bill is a retrograde step, one of many, and we shall oppose it as hard as we can.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who said that she did not consider that the insurance principle ought to apply to the National Health Service. I fully agree with that, but let us not suppose that the Government in this Measure are applying the insurance principle. They are not. The insurance principle is applied, by and large, over the range of social security legislation, in pensions, unemployment, and sickness benefit.

Sir Frederick Messer: Financial benefits, not service.

Mr. Silverman: Certainly. Those things may fairly be described as being based upon a kind of insurance principle, with a kind of proportional premium to establish a social insurance fund out of which the risks are met, as an insurance company would meet them. The analogy is not complete or exact, but it is a fair enough analogy to use. This has never applied to the National Health Service, and there has never been any attempt to apply the insurance principle to it.
If the Government were applying the insurance principle now, we should oppose it tooth and nail, but we should understand it. Although we should strenuously oppose it, at any rate it could be said that this is the kind of thing one can insure against, and that what was proposed was the establishment of an insurance fund, out of insurance premiums, from which the cost could be met. That would be a wrong principle, but at least it would be a principle.
There is no principle here. The contributions provided for in the principal Act, as increased now by this amending Bill, will not provide an insurance cover; they will not provide a fund out of which finance can be found to bear the charges for the Service. There is no fund. These payments, when they are collected, will not be set aside, as an insurance company would set them aside, on an actuarial basis.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an introduction to some comments on the Amendment. The introduction is somewhat lengthy, and I hope he will come to the point of the Amendment quickly.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to you, Mr. MacPherson. If I may say so, you have correctly apprehended the trend of my argument, and for that I take a little credit to myself in having managed, at any rate, to be thus far clear. But the point of the Amendment will not be understood except against the background of the finances of the scheme. That is all my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock had in mind when she made her point about the insurance principle. We could not have moved this Amendment if an insurance principle were being established. It would be a regular contribution from everyone in order to insure against unascertained risk. That is not the position under this Bill at all. This Measure involves merely the collection by the Government of money which will go towards the general finances of the nation. It is a poll tax on the poor in order to relieve the rich of Income Tax and Surtax. It is nothing else.
What is the point of the Amendment seen against that background? The Government are not introducing this universally. The Schedule makes exceptions.

One exception it makes that we are seeking to extend or expand is an exception for people over the age of 65. Why should there be this arbitrary age? Why not 64 or 66? We all know the answer to that. It is that the Government do not wish to incur any further opprobrium by increasing the burdens on old-age pensioners.
In other words, the Government accept the principle—which is also the principle of the Amendment—that we should temper the wind to the shorn lamb. Before charging the extra sum one takes into account what one is charging it against, and whose pockets it is being taken out of and what will be in the pockets when it has been taken out. What will be left after this extra sum has been taken out?
The Government have not been entirely oblivious to this principle, but, having accepted it and applied it to old-age pensioners, how can they resist the Amendment? There are many people in this country who are earning less than £10 a week and there are those who are earning £7 a week and who have family and other responsibilities. They are in no better position than many old-age pensioners who are receiving a full pension in addition, perhaps, to other means, or whose pensions are supplemented by the National Assistance Board.
Mention was made of unemployed people. I think that there is an Amendment concerning them on the Order Paper. But there are also the partially unemployed. I speak with some knowledge on this matter, which affects every cotton town in Lancashire. It certainly affects my own constituency, where people are not employed by the week for a weekly wage. The earnings in the factory are apportioned to the output of the looms, which is not within the control of the worker. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) spoke about people who have not the opportunity of working overtime; but there are hundreds of thousands of people who have not the opportunity of earning a full week's wages, let alone overtime. They are the partially unemployed, but they have to pay their contributions. They will be liable under the Bill. Why? They will not be liable on any insurance principle.
It is not a contributory scheme. It is not intended to pay for itself.
The Government are proposing to relieve some people, and I applaud them for it. I am not criticising that proposal. They have rightly decided to exempt certain people from the extra charge, but they have not exempted enough. Every one of the reasons which prompted the Government to exempt old-age pensioners is valid in support of this Amendment. It is impossible without complete irrationality to do the one and refuse the other.
In the old days, when Tory Governments wanted to deflate, they did not pursue these indirect methods. They could make an all-out attack on wages. They did not mind if it produced strikes, because, after all, strikes are only another form of unemployment. If unemployment is wanted, a strike will do as well as anything else. So the Government made the direct attack knowing that they would either reduce the wages directly or produce voluntary or involuntary unemployment as a result. They dare not do that today. They do it indirectly. I will not repeat the speech that I made on an earlier Amendment, but this is only another example of the same thing.
The Government do not need these coppers out of the poor box. They do not need to search the pockets of the very poor to get the extra 2d., 4d. or 6d. This proposal is a part of a general scheme. Where one cannot attack the wages directly, the wages in the pay envelope are attacked or the standard of living is attacked through the housewife's shopping purse. There is nothing to be said in favour of it at all. If the Government want to raise the money because we are spending more than we ought to spend having regard to what we collect, there are many readier, wealthier and juster ways of raising more national revenue than by going to people with less than £10 a week and all sorts of family responsibilities and saying, "Come on; another 6d., please".
Will not the Government, even now, think again about this Measure? They will not get much money by resisting the Amendment. It will not make much difference to their expenditure. The surplus will not be very much less on

Budget day if they dispense with these extra payments. They will not even have them. The Minister said earlier that he would not be able to collect the money until 1st July, or thereabouts, at the earliest.
I say to the Government, "Think again. As you are sparing the old-age pensioner, spare the people at the lower end of the wage scale. They need it more than you need it. Every additional impost you have made in other ways cries aloud for an exemption in this case". I hope that the Government will not resist these pleas.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friends have made speeches tonight which, think, have moved the Committee. They have not tried to adduce an academic argument as to why people earning under £10 a week should be relieved. The only means that we have at our command to mitigate the severity of this Bill is to come to the House of Commons and select special categories of workers who, we believe, would suffer under the Bill, perhaps, more than others.
8.0 p.m.
During the Second Reading debate an hon. Member opposite implied that hon. Members on this side of the House were apt to exaggerate the conditions of the workers. He said "Consider the railwaymen", and he quoted their earnings. I have observed that the Conservative Party always refers to earnings, and never to basic wages. My hon. Friends have pointed out that overtime is not always available, and that some people are permanently on short time. I hope that in future hon. Members opposite will think in terms of basic wages.
It is no exaggeration to say that there are men—and thousands of women—who are earning only £5, £6 or £7 a week. Hon. Members opposite may not be in contact with them, but I expect that the houses of many are them are cleaned by daily domestic workers earning £5 or less a week. They will be called upon to pay 8s. a week.
When I mentioned the figure of 8s. previously the Minister said, "You must remember that this is a health contribution only. You must not think in terms of a payment of 8s. a week." We must be realistic. This is a cumulative matter. People do not say, "Oh, I am only being


asked for a small amount as a extra contribution towards the Health Service." The Minister should bear in mind that this extra contribution will be thought of in terms of a payment of 8s. a week and not as a payment of a few extra coppers.
My hon. Friends have asked the Minister to exercise the quality of mercy, but if he finds it impossible to do so I would remind him of what Lord Beveridge said; and he has been called in aid time after time. The Minister will recall that the Beveridge Report recommended that employees should make contributions, but paragraph 287 said that
persons with low wages … should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer.
The Amendment directs the attention of the Committee to persons earning low wages—the people specified in the Beveridge Report. Such people command our sympathy. The figure of £10 is an arbitrary one, but we felt that in inserting it we might command the sympathy of hon. Members opposite, who know that many people are in that wage category, who would suffer great hardship by this increase. Therefore, even at this late hour, I ask the Minister to reconsider the position and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I have been hoping that we would have heard more about some of the people earning £10 or less. I hoped that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) especially would substantiate the argument that he advanced last week. I am sorry to say that he has not yet risen. It may be that he will do so after I have finished speaking; the Committee likes to have honest arguments put forward. When the hon. Member for Cheadle was talking upon this subject last week he referred to the earnings of porters and ticket collectors as being £9 17s. 6d. and £11 16s. 2d. respectively. He might at least have informed the House then that he obtained his figures from an estimated census and not from records of actual payments.
The hon. Gentleman's figures were calculated not upon an average yearly basis, but upon one week in 1957—the week ended 23rd March. To say that porters and ticket collectors are getting £9 17s. 6d.

and £11 16s. 2d. respectively is all nonsense. His figures were taken from an estimate based upon the court of inquiry award. He should have told the House then that that was where he got his figures. The correct figures issued in the census were £10 10s. 7d. for the ticket collector and £8 17s. 6d. for the porter, and those figures included Sunday duty. They applied to a porter working 12 hours on Sunday duty, with all the inconvenience of shift working and night duty. Would the hon. Member like to work a constant succession of shift duties? Would he like to work every Saturday afternoon, when everybody else is enjoying himself?
The correct figures are not as the hon. Member indicated. The porter on the lowest grade earns £7 7s. a week, rising after the second year to £7 11s. 6d. Those figures apply not only to porters, but to 40.000 other members of the railway industry, and include crossing keepers, who sometimes work the clock round. If such people make a mistake involving a loss of life they stand trial at court. Only a few years ago a crossing keeper who was in receipt of this miserable pittance was sentenced to six months' imprisonment because he made a mistake in carrying out his duty.
This situation applies not only to railwaymen, but to miners. Many miners who work above ground are disabled, and cannot do ordinary work. Such a miner receives £8 10s. a week, and he may have to keep a wife and three or four children on it. He is now to be asked to pay an increase in his contribution, bringing the total deduction from his pay up to 9s. 11d. per week. The same consideration applies to shop workers and agricultural workers, who earn a minimum of £7 per week. If such a worker earns anything in addition it is through extensive overtime, and he is penalised for it. Then we have the case of the widow, who may have been left with a home to keep going, with no additional income. In many cases she receives between £5 and £6 a week, or less. Nevertheless, she has to pay the additional charge.
This charge has risen by 2s. 6d. in the last twelve months. Although an easement of £35 million was given to the Surtax payer in the last Budget the Government are asking for another 6d.


from the pockets of the poor people. The matter does not bear consideration. As has been said, this is indeed a poll tax.
There has been a very steep increase in the cost of living, and the class of workers to whom we are referring have been penalised because of increasing food prices. A reduction of £300 million in food subsidies works out at £6 per head of the population. If there are four persons in the family such people are penalised to the extent of 10s. a week—and then this miserable charge is imposed, in addition. Moreover, there are all the other charges which they have to pay towards the Health Service. It is no use hon. Members opposite referring back to 1950 and 1951 and saying that it was a Labour Government which enabled these charges to be made. The 1951 Act was brought in with a limited objective for a limited period to meet a specific emergency. There was no intention that this should be a continuing provision.
We also remember how the adjustments were based. Instead of the Exchequer contribution being based on the figure of one-fifth, as was originally intended, the contribution remains on the basis of one-seventh. This saving in the Exchequer contribution has continued, and yet the poorer people who are living on the poverty line have to pay these extra charges. When I refer to the poverty line I do not apologise for doing so. I know people in my own constituency who are drawing very small wages. Surely it is not asking the Minister too much to say that he is prepared to accept the principle involved in this Amendment, namely, to exempt people in the lower-paid income groups from paying these increases.
If the Minister cannot accept the figure of £10, we on this side of the Committee would be prepared to meet him and agree some figure which will do justice. I ask the Minister not to brush this suggestion to one side, not to use the old shibboleth that we have heard so often and to tell us what took place in the years 1945 to 1950, when we were in the midst of an experiment and introduced a first-class Health Service. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to shelter himself behind that sort of thing. Let him be a realist and answer the arguments

which have been advanced from this side of the Committee. Let him give some easement and sense of justice to these lower-paid people

Mr. Shepherd: I had not risen to make the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) thought I might make, because I thought it would be better made on a later Amendment. However, as the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to cast doubt upon my statements and even to accuse me of some very disgraceful things, I think I ought to reply to those allegations.
When last week I quoted figures in respect of railwaymen's earnings, which have a relevance to this Amendment, I in no way exaggerated the position. Every statement I made was absolutely true, and I refrained from elaborating my statements which would have made my case stronger. The hon. Gentleman said that the figures I quoted related to one week. It is very important that they are in respect of one week. If one is to do what the British Transport Commission does—to make a census of the earnings of its staff—it must be done scientifically. I invite the hon. Gentleman to suggest means by which this census can be carried out more scientifically than it now is. In my view, it is done in the most scientific manner possible.
It is true that the March, 1957, period was taken into account and that the earnings in respect of the various grades were recorded. In addition, due weight was given to the number of people in the provinces, and due weight was also given in respect of categories. This attempt to obtain a census of earnings was conducted in the most scientific manner possible.
I did not give the whole of the case, as I might have done. For example, I did not tell the Committee last week that labourers on the railway have an average earning of £11 6s. 4d.

Mr. Popplewell: For one week.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman cannot use the argument that I selected one week which was favourable, because there would be no means of deciding which was a favourable week, In fact, I would say that that week was an unfavourable week. I will deal with that in a moment.
There are other grades where the earnings are surprisingly high. The hon. Gentleman says that these people work overtime. Let me tell him that I come from a railway town, and I know that to work sometimes at night, on a Bank Holiday and on a Saturday is an indispensable part of a railwayman's life. It is as important as it is for a farmer or for anybody in public service. It is not an exceptional circumstance for a railwayman to work overtime occasionally. It is the normal kind of existence.
8.15 p.m.
This sort of working is indispensable to the running of a railway. If men did not work on Bank Holidays or at night or on Saturdays the railways would come to a full stop. Therefore, when I say that these earnings are a true reflection of what the men are earning, I mean it. Earnings on the railways are a better criterion than earnings in other industries, because working at what to some people appears to be odd times is an indispensable part of running the railways. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the calculations that I have made.
When I mentioned railway porters, I was particularly helpful to the hon. Gentleman because I did not mention senior porters who get £11 6s. 4d. a week. Neither did I mention any of the tips which porters receive. Therefore, I understated my case. I feel that the hon. Gentleman, in trying to show that wages received by railway workers are lower than they actually are, is doing a disservice to the system of recruiting.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member has fallen into the same trap again. He has been using the word "earnings" and he concludes by using the word "wages". We on these benches have been trying to point out the difference between earnings and wages. The senior porter to whom the hon. Gentleman referred is paid £7 11s. a week, and he gets that only after two years' service.

Dr. King: Would the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) tell us whether he is in favour of the Amendment or against it, and why? Does he even know which Amendment we are discussing?

Mr. R. Thompson: The debate on this Amendment has shown the same concern as was expressed so widely by hon.

Members opposite in our discussions on the Financial Resolution and again on Second Reading. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite during the course of this debate said quite rightly that this Amendment went to the heart of the whole matter.
The objection of hon. Members opposite to the Bill is that this is a wrong way of collecting the additional funds required to run the service. They feel it is wrong because, as they put it, the increased charge which it is proposed to levy would fall most heavily on those least able to pay it. I think that is not an unfair summary of the views of hon. Members opposite.
Although the general argument has been extensively debated during an earlier stage of the Bill, I do not complain that we should have gone into this matter pretty thoroughly again on this Amendment, for I recognise that this is a very fundamental point indeed—perhaps the most important consideration in the whole Bill.
I doubt whether this is really the place to go once again into the argument of whether to pay for this Service by contributions, by charges, out of general taxation, or, as we do at present, by a mixture of all three. The fact of the matter is that the cost of the Service has increased, and for reasons which we have already stated we consider that the appropriate way of recovering that is by this charge.
What hon. Members are proposing in this Amendment is that we exempt those earning less than £10 a week, and the hon. Gentleman did say he would not be particularly rigid about the figure provided we produce a figure somewhere in the lower income range. The object of the Amendment is to exempt such people from the increased charge.
This would, of course, introduce a completely new situation in our arrangements. National Insurance and National Health Service contributions already provide for a series of flat rates, namely, for men, women and juveniles, and there are refinements for each of those according to whether they are employed, self-employed, and so on. In my judgment, it would be quite inadmissible by a Bill of this restricted character to change, as it were, the whole basis on which the


contributions are paid by introducing this new principle which this Amendment seeks to introduce.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the hon. Gentleman not conceded that principle already in the exceptions already made? That is the point I tried to make, that the new principle has been introduced there. All we are saying is: apply it equitably.

Mr. Thompson: What the hon. Member is saying harks back to what he said in his speech, which was, why have a figure of 65 above which contributions are not payable? Of course, the answer to that is that right from the beginning of the National Insurance scheme there have been retirement ages and everything flows from that.

Mr. Silverman: Unless I am mistaken, the age of 65 does not exempt a man from paying stamps if he goes on working. It is not a question of saying, "If you stop working you shall not pay". That is not said in the Schedule either. The arbitrary figure of 65 has been introduced, no doubt having old-age pensioners in mind; but the exemption is not limited to those on pension. If one is working above the age of 65 one is still exempted.

Mr. Thompson: If one is in regular employment between 65 and 70, and one is a man, one continues to pay the contribution——

Mr. Silverman: But it is exempted here.

Mr. Thompson: —but if one has retired or is only working part-time or occasionally, one does not, and it does not seem to me that that involves any breach of principle.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has stated the point without appreciating what he is saying. What he has just stated now is perfectly true, that under the social security arrangements, if one is in work, one goes on paying one's stamps whatever one's age, above 65 or not. The hon. Gentleman was trying to use that in order to explain that this Amendment introduced a new principle, but it does not. The new principle is introduced in the Schedule, where exemption from these contributions comes automatically if one is over 65, irrespective of whether one is working or not, irrespective of whether one is paying for stamps or not.

Mr. Thompson: The new principle to which I was referring was the principle that contributions should in some way be affected by the proposed capacity to pay them of the people on whom they are levied; by that I mean the £10 per week line which has been adopted for the purposes of this Amendment.
The argument which has been urged upon many sides all along that the proposed way of financing the Service bears too heavily on those least in a position to pay seems to me to be very far from the whole story. Let us for a moment consider how the cost of the National Health Service as a whole in the year 1958–59 will be borne. We find that during that year 72 per cent. of the total cost of the Service will in fact be borne by the Treasury. That is to say, the money will be found, as hon. Members will appreciate, from the proceeds of general taxation. It will not to that very great extent, 72 per cent., come from contributions.
I think it is apt to be overlooked that the poor man, the lowest paid worker whom we have been talking about today, inevitably pays little in general taxation. He cannot pay much because he does not each much, but the better off man pays progressively more the more he earns. Therefore, he carries in his contribution to the general finance of the country a far larger proportion of the cost of the Service in absolute terms, and, because of high direct taxation, even in relative terms he probably pays more towards it than the poor man. I think that is perfectly right.

Dr. Summerskill: Why should he not?

Mr. Thompson: I think that is perfectly right, but if that is so we should not talk in terms which suggest that a totally unfair and monstrous impost is being laid on large sections of the population when in fact the greater part of the Service is financed from general taxation to which those very people do not make a very large contribution.
As I have said, this Amendment introduces an entirely new principle of contribution by means test. I take the view that this new principle should not be introduced in such a piece-meal or limited way.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: The Minister refers constantly to a new principle. He has agreed that in general taxation and in Income Tax the man with a larger income pays more. He approves of that, and he accepts it as being fair. The Amendment is only a refinement of the principle which he accepts.

Mr. Thompson: I cannot accept that. Beveridge originally accepted the principle of a contribution factor, and the one he had in mind was not very different from what it will be under this proposed arrangement. If we accept that, we should not add an additional complication of a means test above which certain contributions are paid and others are not.
I cannot deviate from the view that this would be an entirely wrong way to seek to alter the basis of the financing of this service, and in the circumstances I must advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: I am afraid that the speech to which we have just listened shows clearly the difference between the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The Minister has said that it would be wrong to introduce such a new principle in this piece-meal, limited way. All we have been trying to do by this Amendment is to salvage something from this pretty poor Measure.
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of this discussion, although I was in for the others. I am certain that my hon. Friends would wish, as we wished in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, as we wished on the Second Reading of the Bill, to do something for the lowest paid workers. If the Government did not feel that they could accept what they term a piece-meal and limited way of dealing with the matter, in spite of all the speeches made by back benchers on their own side, surely they could have decided to hold up this Measure until they were able to come forward with one which would suit the times much better?
Many back benchers on the Government side have realised in the various debates that the time has now come when we must leave this flat-rate contribution and adopt a graded contribution. That is the only solution whereby

we can stop putting burdens on the lower-paid workers who are unable to bear them. I was interested in the speech of one hon. Member, who has now left the Chamber, who was mixing earnings and wages. We believe it is right, as the Minister seems to believe, that a greater part of the National Health Service expense should be borne by those taxpayers who are able to bear it. We believe that, just as many of the lower-paid workers have been relieved of direct taxation because they could not afford to pay it, the stage has now come when the same workers ought to be relieved of any other addition to these contributions, particularly the addition to the National Health Service contributions. We are dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister and we intend to carry our dissatisfaction into the Division Lobby.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I found it difficult to follow the reply given by the hon. Gentleman. He said, in effect, that this was not the time to help the weak. That is a peculiar attitude of mind. I should have thought any time was a good time to help the weak.

Mr. S. Silverman: Or no time.

Mr. Willis: I should have thought any time was a good time to help the weak, even in a Bill dealing with the National Health Service contributions, and even in the manner suggested by the Amendment. Then the hon. Gentleman argued that there were verious ways of paying for the National Health Service. He said we paid part of it through our taxation, part through charges, part through our contributions. He said that through taxation wealthy people paid more than others, and he agreed that that was right. But surely the logic of that is to apply the principle of the Amendment.
If the principle which he accepted is correct, namely, that the well-to-do should pay more than poorer people, what is the reason for objecting to the Amendment when all that the Amendment does is to say that the contribution to be paid by poorer people, those with less than £10 a week, will be 6d. less than that paid by others? Obviously, that additional 6d. will be found through national taxation. How does he accept that as an argument against our Amendment? The case which he made was a


case for the acceptance of the Amendment, not for its rejection.
The hon. Gentleman said that to try to amend a provision in a Schedule was not good enough. It is good enough to amend a Bill in any respect, if the position happens to be the right one and the Schedule is the only part of the Bill wherein to deal with the exact amount of the contribution. Surely the hon. Member does not believe that he persuades many people of the soundness of his arguments in this manner.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Amendment is an endeavour to get something after we have lost the main principle. It is an endeavour to salvage something. It is a method of saying that we have not been successful in impressing upon the Government the strength of our case that there should have been no increase, but that we will endeavour to save the poorest people from the worst effects of the Bill. That is a good thing to do. What is wrong with trying to do that?
The Government themselves ought to have done that. If the function of government is to protect the weak, the Government and not the Opposition should have taken this step. Of course, the function of the present Government is not to protect the weak, but to protect the well-to-do, the reverse of the function of government.

There are already several gradations in the Schedule, a number of provisions which appear to be contradictory. Why should an employed woman who gets the same wage as a man pay less? One could ask all sorts of questions about such anomalies. For a great many of these contradictions in the Schedule there is not much justification, but there is a greater justification for the acceptance of the series of Amendments which we have suggested.

There are many people who earn exceedingly small wages. Hon. Members opposite never seem to realise that 6d. matters to many people. Of course, it does not seem very much to hon. Members opposite. We appreciate that it is something outside their conception that one should have to struggle along and be worried to death at the end of the week because one does not have that additional 6d. That is wholly alien to the way of life of many hon. Members opposite, and I appreciate that they find it difficult to understand such a situation. However, it is important to many people, and it is those whom we want to protect from the worst effect of the Bill.

Having listened to the arguments, I cannot feel that the Government have had the better of the discussion, and I believe there is no justification for their decision.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 231.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Champion, A. J.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, W. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, Anthony


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Clunie, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Baird, J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Benson, Sir George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Beswick, Frank
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hastings, S.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hayman, F. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Deer, G.
Healey, Denis


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Boardman, H.
Diamond, John
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Dodde, N. N.
Holmes, Horace


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowles, F. G.
Dye, S.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Boyd, T. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Finch, H. J.
Irvine. A. J. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Carmichael, J.
Foot, D. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, B.




Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Mort, D. L.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Moss, R.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Mulley, F. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sparks, J. A.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Steele, T.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oliver, G, H.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oswald, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Kenyon, C.
Owen, W. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sylvester, G. O.


King, Dr. H. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ledger, R. J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Parker, J.
Tomney, F.


Lewis, Arthur
Paton, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lindgren, G. S.
Pentland, N.
Viant, S. P.


Lipton, Marcus
Popplewell, E.
Watkins, T. E.


Logan, D. G.
Prentice, R. E.
Weitzman, D.


McCann, J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacColl, J. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
West, D. G.


MacDermot, Niall
Probert, A. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


McGhee, H. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Randall, H. E.
Willey, Frederick


McLeavy, Frank
Rankin, John
Williams, David (Neath)


MacMillan, M, K. (Western Isles)
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reeves, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfd, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Mason, Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Woof, R. E.


Messer, Sir F.
Royle, C.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, E. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Alport, C. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Arbuthnot, John
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Armstrong, C. W.
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Ashton, H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Atkins, H. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holt, A. F.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hornby, R. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Barber, Anthony
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Barter, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh. S.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fisher, Nigel
Hyde, Montgomery


Bingham, R. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Body, R. F.
Freeth, Denzil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H,
Glover, D,
Kaberry, D.


Brooman-White, R, C.
Godber, J. B.
Keegan, D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Goodhart, Philip
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bryan, P.
Gower, H. R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kimball, M.


Carr, Robert
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Kirk, P. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Green, A.
Lagden, G. W.


Channon, Sir Henry
Grimond, J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Leavey, J. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leburn, W. G.


Cole, Norman
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cooke, Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harrison, A. B, C. (Maldon)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Linstead, Sir H. N.







Llewellyn, D. T.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Longden, Gilbert
Page, R. G.
Storey, S.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp;Chiswick)
Partridge, E.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peel, W. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer


McAdden, S. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McKibbin, Alan
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Teeling, W.


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Pott, H. P.
Temple, John M.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, J. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Rawlinson, Peter
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Redmayne, M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Marshall, Douglas
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wade, D. W.


Mathew, R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maude, Angus
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Mawby, R. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wall, Patrick


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Sharpies, R. C.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woollam, John Victor


Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Speir, R. M.



Nugent, G. R. H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oakshott, H. D.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Finlay.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, column 2, to leave out "1s. 10½d." and to insert "1s. 5d."

The Chairman: This Amendment may be discussed with the Amendments on the next page of the Notice Paper, in line 14, column 2, to leave out "1s. 4½d." and to insert "1s. 1d.", and in line 15, column 2, to leave out "10½d." and to insert "9d.", both in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. Marquand: These Amendments relate entirely to the contribution now to be levied upon employed men and women. We find ourselves in the same difficulty as that explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that owing to the nature of the Ways and Means Resolution and the Title of the Bill we are unable to do what we should like to do, namely, to eliminate altogether the increased contributions.
Therefore, we propose by our Amendment to leave in the minimum increase possible. We have already explained very fully, in the debates on the Ways and Means Resolution and on the Second Reading, our objection to this increased contribution. Whatever case might have been made out for the contributions which were instituted five months ago, the Com

mittee has now no idea what the shape of the Budget is to be, whether a large surplus will be shown or not, or what the estimates are of the yield of Income Tax and Surtax in the coming year. Therefore it is very wrong of the Government to propose to levy an increased contribution upon wage earners, and a flat rate contribution, to which we have already expressed our objection.
There is no additional argument which I can advance at this stage. We have already gone very fully over all the arguments. When we come to a later stage of the Bill and to other classes of contributors, including the ordinary employed contributor, different considerations may apply and they will be in some respects new matter for our consideration. The present examples fall squarely within the two previous debates that we have had, so I do not propose to weary the Committee by making a long speech. I doubt whether any of my hon. Friends will feel that it is necessary to say very much at this stage.
We must however register in the Division Lobby our dislike of the proposed increased contribution. We need not let this occasion pass without saying that we object to the increase just as strongly as before, as we said in our Second Reading and Financial Resolution speeches. I


will reserve any further remarks about any particular rates of contribution for later stages of the Bill.

The Chairman: My suggestion was that we should discuss these three Amendments together. When we come to the next two in due course they will not be further discussed, but there could be a Division if wanted.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has been very frank about these Amendments. He has explained to the Committee that he has formulated them in this way in order, within the bounds of order and the limitations imposed by the Ways and Means Resolution and the passage of the Second Reading, to undo as nearly as possible the main purpose of the Bill. The adjustment proposed, which in effect is to limit the increases to only ½d. above the existing level, is obviously derisory and one which no Government would bring forward in a Bill.
There are two main reasons why these Amendments are totally unacceptable. The first is that they would revolutionise by a side wind the traditional pattern of contribution as between employer and employee, and the second is that they take away most of the financial gain to the Exchequer which the Bill is designed to achieve. The pattern of contribution between employer and employee is broadly derived from Beveridge and has been consistently followed up to date in the history of these contributions. Out of the original total of 10d. the employer's share was 1½d. The 1957 Act brought the total contribution to 1s. 8d. with the employer's share as 3½d. Under this Bill the proposed total will be 2s. 4d. with the employer's share 5½d. There has been a reasonably consistent ratio of one to four which the adoption of these Amendments would reverse and make a ratio of four to one for the increase. By a side wind incidental to Amendments like this we obviously could not revolutionise the whole pattern of contributions.
The other main difficulty is the very large diminution in the amount of money which would come to the Exchequer in relief of Exchequer liability. As the Committee knows, the Bill is designed to secure £24 million in the current

financial year. If these Amendments, and certain others which are to be discussed, were all adopted, that £24 million would be reduced to £9 million, which is not enough for the purpose we have in mind.
In any event it would not be a net figure because we should have a much larger proportion coming from the employer than at present. The employer's contribution is subject to a double adjustment in order to reduce the gross figure to a net figure. The double adjustment arises from the facts, first, that commercial employers are eligible for tax relief in respect of their contributions and, secondly, that the Government are themselves considerable employers. For both reasons there is on my calculations a substantial reduction from the gross figure of £9 million, itself inadequate, which would be left if these Amendments were accepted.

Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now telling us that, in addition to rigging the Budget and giving us this extra budgetary taxation, the Government have adjusted the employer's contribution to what they think employers can afford to pay?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. As I have already pointed out, although the hon. Member must have been listening with less than his usual careful attention, in the Bill the employer's contribution has followed the traditional pattern.
With adjustments for the halfpennies and so on, it has followed the pattern that we inherited from the original Beveridge concept, and we reproduced it in the 1957 Act, and in this Bill. As I say, this proposal would leave the ratio of the employers' contribution to that of the employees' at four to one, which is unrealistic in the context of a Bill like this, which is concerned with only a relatively modest increase.
I think, Sir Charles, as is clear even from what the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that these Amendments are not practical, and not really in keeping with the purpose of the Bill. It will, therefore, be no surprise to him when I say that I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject them.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Prentice: Of the Amendments now before us, I should like to speak briefly on that relating to employed


boys and girls under 18. Throughout the debates on the Bill, our purpose on this side has been to draw attention to those groups likely to suffer the greatest hardship from the imposition of the new rates of contribution, but the concentration all the time has, naturally, been upon the older men and women, and the young people under 18 have not, so far as I know, been mentioned at all at any stage.
There are one or two special points in relation to them that ought to be made. For them, as for the others, this Bill is simply one of a series that has increased their weekly payments. Early last summer, the weekly National Insurance contribution of a boy under 18 was 3s. 11d. It was increased by 4d. last year, when the National Health Service contribution was imposed. It was increased by another 1s. at the end of January by the National Insurance Act. This Bill increases it by a further 2d., bringing the total to 5s. 5d. That is an added 1s. 6d. a week, which is a big increase in relation to their earnings. During the same period, the contribution required of a girl under 18 has risen from 3s. 3d. to 4s. 8d. a week.
It is often said in these days that young people of that age are earning good wages. It is sometimes suggested that they are earning more than they know what to do with, but if there is any truth in that about any of them it is not true of very large numbers of young people now out at work. There are two categories of these young people. There are those who are postponing the expectation of earning good wages in order to train at a craft or professsion. An obvious example is the craft apprentice. Perhaps, with my surname, I should here declare an interest in apprenticeships, but, seriously, young men or young women who take up an apprenticeship are postponing their chance of earning good wages, and are consequently bringing home relatively poor money during that time.
A recent report issued by a sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Council for Industry stressed the need in most British industries for larger numbers of apprentices during the coming years. It said that this would depend on young people being willing to take

apprenticeships, and also on their staying the course so that they did not give up during their training. Young people in this position are reminded every day that their friends are earning higher wages in jobs requiring less skill, and they are tempted to abandon the harder course of apprenticeship.
The same applies to young people articled to a profession, and postponing their chance of earning higher salaries. At the same time, we all agree that it is necessary that they should train, and should develop their skill both for their own sake and for that of the community. The nation needs their skill. If one says to a boy of 16 or 17 years of age, "You will be earning good money at 25," that seems a very long time ahead. At that age, every year seems very much longer than it does later in life. We ought not, therefore, as a community, to impose a extra disincentive on these young people. We ought not to reduce further the pay they take home at the end of each week.
The other category are those young people aged, perhaps, 16 or 17, who have adult dependents. They are a minority, of course, because most young people of that age, after paying something for their keep, have what is left over for pocket money; but there are some who, even at that early age, have a serious responsibility in caring for adult dependents.
A few years ago, there was a boy who worked in the office where I was working—he was, in fact, my junior—and, though only 16, he had a widowed mother to support. Her health was not good enough to permit her to go out to work, and that boy used to put nearly all his small earnings into the family budget. Every penny meant something to him. He was often in the position of needing to borrow 2d. a couple of days before pay day, and that sort of thing. To increase the contribution on a flat-rate basis so that it affects young people in these positions of responsibility is really most unfair. It increases their difficulties compared with other young people of similar age who have more money to spend.
Our case against the Bill is that it creates hardship for many categories of people, and I hope that I have reminded the Committee that, among them, are


included young people under eighteen years of age.

Mr. Mellish: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). We shall, of course, soon have a Labour Government in power, and we shall introduce our own national superannuation proposals which will wipe away the sort of problems that we are discussing tonight. Our proposals, Sir John, will be based on individual contributions related to people's earnings. These present flat-rate proposals, on the other hand, as my hon. Friend has said, create many anomalies. Although the increases may seem small, the actual amount paid by many families as their share of the contribution for National Insurance is very large indeed.
In my constituency, Sir John, not very high wages are earned. Although, according to newspapers like the Daily Express, high wages are supposed to be earned, it just is not so. There are many people there who work in general factories in which the basic rates are very low, and there is little or no chance of earning overtime. One case came to my notice quite recently. The man's income was £8 10s. a week. The income of his wife was £5 a week, and the income of his son was £2 8s. The total income of that household sounds very high—£15 18s.—but, as a matter of fact, there are dependents, also, an elderly mother and father to be cared for. What do those three people pay by way of insurance contributions?
Under this Bill, the husband pays 9s. 11d. a week, the wife pays 8s. a week, and the son pays 5s. 5d., a total of £14s. 4d. a week deducted from their income for National Insurance contributions. Breaking it down even further, their contribution towards the Health Service is 1s. 10½d. for the man, 1s. 4½d. for the woman, 10½d. for the boy. Their total contribution every week towards the Health Service, therefore, is 4s. 1½d. Where it is so unfair is that, by contrast, to take my own personal case, for instance, my income is a great deal more than the whole of that family's income, yet I do not pay as much as they pay in contributions. The income coming into my family is that much higher. This is the kind of anomaly which makes us

feel so strongly about increases on the flat-rate basis applied by the Government. It is not just a matter of party politics.
I should not mind so much if people were going to get real value for money at the end of the day for their 4s. 1½d., or whatever it may be, which is paid as their part of the contribution to the Health Service. I have said it again and again. The Minister keeps shaking his head in disagreement, but I assure him that I am right and he is wrong. I know about these things, but he spends his time in an office being advised only of what is going on. This year, the National Health Service will be cut; the services provided for people will not be as good as they were, and development and improvements will come to a complete standstill. Here there is, on the one hand, an increase in contribution to make what appears to be a better Service and, on the other, a definite cut in that Service so that people paying this money will not even get value for the money that they are paying in.
Not long ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour set up a committee of which he was chairman. He submitted a unanimous report, which I read. It spoke about the problems of young people and the fact that in a few years' time there will be large numbers of youngsters coming on to the labour market. The longer the Government stay in power—I do not know how long this crowd will stay in; I suppose they will stay to the bitter end—the worse the problems of these youngsters will become. Young people leaving school will have a hard enough job to get employment while this Government are in power, producing more unemployment without, at the same time, slapping extra money on to their contribution.
There is a great deal of validity in this Amendment. It is no good the Minister saying that it is ludicrous and that he could not accept it because it is ludicrous. It is just and right that it should be accepted, although I know that hon. Members opposite will stroll into the Lobby and vote against it. All the years that the Government have been in power we on this side have been in the winning Lobby only once, and that was on capital punishment. But I had better not go into that, because I know that I shall be out of order.
This is a legitimate Amendment and it ought to be accepted on the financial grounds that I have mentioned. Although we keep talking in terms of a 4d. or a 6d., it is an added burden to an already large contribution being made by these people to the Health Service generally.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I wish the Minister would not keep giving us this nauseating humbug about the Beveridge Report and saying that the component in the contribution is the same as that recommended by Beveridge. That is not the fact.
In the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred, the people who are making a contribution in that house are also keeping certain dependents. As a result of legislation passed by the Government, those dependents, if they fall ill, have to pay a prescription charge. If the old man were a cripple he would either have to pay for a surgical boot or for its repair. If there were need for other benefits from the National Health Service—if, for example, a member of the family had to have dental treatment—they would have to pay for it because of the actions of the Government. At least the Beveridge conception was not one which conceived of a whole range of charges. The Minister and his supporters keep concealing the reality of the matter, which is that, in addition to making them pay more, he is also a member of a Government which has inflicted charges upon the sick and which perpetuates them. It is not right to ride away and talk about the Beveridge contribution——

Mr. Walker-Smith: My reference to the Beveridge Report in the context of this debate was on the pattern of the contribution between the employer and the employee, respectively, I would certainly join issue with the hon. Gentleman's remarks in a much wider context, but they in no way arise out of what I have said in this debate.

Mr. Griffiths: They are very much present in the minds of my hon. Friends. Having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, all that the Opposition are trying, quite properly, to do now, seized as they are with the enormity of the inflictions on the sick, for which the Minister and hon. Members opposite are responsible, is to get a minor mitigation. That is a perfectly proper Parliamentary exercise.
9.15 p.m.
We should be failing in our duty if we did not remind the Committee about the humbug of this constant reference to the balance between the employers' and employees' contributions, as conceived by Lord Beveridge in the context of a free Health Service. It no longer is free. Therefore, we have to bear in mind the way in which the increase affects a family such as that referred to by my hon. Friend. We put aside the argument about the raising of money for the National Health Service for the time being. We say that even though the House decided on Second Reading to approach the raising of revenue for the National Health Service in this way, bearing in mind the burdens upon certain families caused by the charges levied upon the sick it is right to seek to minimise the effects of the burden of increased contributions falling upon certain special sections of the community.
The Government are obviously exposed to the charge of not knowing the size of the problem involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, it is only a few months ago that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends brought forward a Bill with a series of other charges. They have now produced this one, which seeks to raise £24 million this year and about £32 million in a full year. It just will not do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey is right to protest on behalf of his constituents and say that, quite apart from the unfair way in which the incidence of these contributions is levied, his constituents are not getting value for money. I prophesy that the Minister will not get away with this attempt to derive a sufficient amount of revenue for the National Health Service. He will be back again asking for a further contribution, or he will be faced—as we told him that he would be last year—with an increasing decay of the Service. I hope that even now hon. Members will think it proper to accept the Amendment, which will at least remove some of the burdens from people who cannot afford to bear them.

Mr. Houghton: What we have missed most in the debate is a speech from the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). The real purpose of


this Amendment and those associated with it is to get the right hon. Gentleman back into the Cabinet. We believe that it is because of this Bill that he went out. We are still plugging away at right hon. Members opposite, trying to discover the truth about his departure. The Bill is the outcome of those Cabinet differences, and it would be interesting to know whether the real complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is that the rest of his colleagues were proposing to cheat him of real economies in Government expenditure.
This series of Amendments reduced the increased contributions to a halfpenny. We intended to reduce them to a derisory amount. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) condemned an earlier Amendment on the grounds that it was a wrecking Amendment. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to condemn Amendments because they are wrecking Amendments; they have moved plenty in their time. Of course this is a wrecking Amendment. Hon. Members opposite realise the difficulties within which we work in trying to defeat a Bill. We are entitled to use every device available to us to obstruct or wreck a Bill with which we disagree. That is an acknowledged part of the duties of Her Majesty's Opposition, and there are no greater past-masters in the art than hon. Members opposite. At least we have not said that we are going to harry the Government night and day and keep them all out of their beds on matters of this kind. We behave rationally and reasonably in our attempts to obstruct and postpone the operation of this Bill.
What is really nauseating about the whole attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that one of these days fairly soon, much of what has been said on this Bill and on its predecessor will have to be unsaid. I believe that the time is rapidly approaching when any Government will have to consider a fundamental change in their approach to financing the social services. The Financial Secretary in reply to an earlier Amendment said that the Government are considering this whole question of financing the social services. It seems a great pity that the Government are changing the existing scheme by increasing the flat rate contributions when they know that they will have to call a halt and change the system.
Most people think that the time to call a halt is now, before the Bill is passed, and to consider alternative means. Graduated contributions, of course, are not the only means of financing this and other social services. Other countries have such things as pay roll taxes. Some countries have no contribution from the worker whatever. There is a tax on the wages paid by the employer, and that is taken into account when he is arranging the financing of his business and considering the costs of production.
There are other choices which are open to the Government in their study of the problem. I see that The Times on 24th February said:
The flat-rate system imposes obvious limits on the possibility of social financing by extra-budgetary means.
That is quite true, though a sinister note is struck in another part of the leading article which suggests that by changing over to a graduated system of contributions it will make it easier for the Government to shuffle more of the expenditure from general taxation to direct contributions. We on these benches would not support a system of graduated contributions which became an abuse of the whole principle of contributions.
Of course, the main criticism of the National Health Service contribution is that it cannot be related to benefits and, therefore, it can be at any level and it can always be said that it is not too high; it can always be said that nobody is paying too much because there is no direct relationship between the contribution and the benefits. That is the mischief of this thing. The Government can stick another 6d. on in a month's time or so, and another 6d. after that. The slogan of the Government will be. "Another little 6d. won't do us any harm."
It is not until the cumulative effects of these things are noticed that we see where we are going. On the principal Measure I moved an Amendment which left the whole of the Bill intact except the money. It took all the money out of the Bill and left the rest without Amendment. That looked pretty good from this side of the Committee, but the Minister made the same complaint, that we had left him without the money. The intention is to leave him without the


money. Let there be no doubt about that.
We want to send the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his colleagues in the Cabinet with the message that if they are going to economise they must do it honestly and properly in full view

of the public and not cheat them in this way. That is all I can say on behalf of the right hon. Member for Monmouth.

Question put, That "1s. 10½d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 185.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[9.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Aitken, W. T.
Glover, D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Arnuthnot, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R,


Armstrong, C. W.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R.(Nantwich)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Ashton, H.
Green, A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Grimond, J.
Marshall, Douglas


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mathew, R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maude, Angus


Barber, Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, R. L.


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Barter, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Neave, Airey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicholls, Harmar


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.


Body, R. F.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Holt, A. F.
Osborne, C.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hornby, R. P.
Page, R. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horobin, Sir Ian
Partridge, E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Peel, W. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Browne, J, Nixon (Craigton)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, P.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hurd, A. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pott, H. P.


Gary, Sir Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch


Charmon, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ramsden, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Peter


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, M.


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Rippon, A. G. F.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kimball, M.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Currie, G. B.H.
Kirk, P. M.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lagden, G. W.
Sharples, R. C.


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leather, E. H. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. C.
Speir, R, M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.



Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Storey, S.


Errington, Sir Eric
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fletcher Cooke, C
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Freeth, Denzil
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Teeling, W.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McKibbin, Alan
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)




Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Wood, Hon. R.


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wall, Patriok
Woollam, John Victor


Vane, W. M. F.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)



Vickers, Miss Joan
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wade, D. W.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Brooman-White.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Baird, J.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Parker, J.


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace
Paton, John


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, N.


Benson, Sir George
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Boardman, H.
Hynn, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Boyd, T. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Royle, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
Ledger, R, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Marcus
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
MacDermot, Niall
Tomney, F.


Diamond, John
McGhee, H. G.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McLeavy, Frank
Watkins, T. E.


Dye, S.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, David (Neath)


Finch, H. J.
Mitchiton, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Foot, D. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Moss, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
Woof, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mulley, F. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 12, column 1, leave out "65" and insert "60".—[Mr. Marquand.]

Question put, That "65" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 226, Noes 183.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Aitken, W. T,
Grimond, J.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Neave, Airey


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholls, Harmar


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Ashton, H.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Osborne, C.


Barber, Anthony
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Page, R. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Peel, W.J.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Holt, A. F.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pott, H. P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Horobin, Sir Ian
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, R. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ramsden, J. E.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Redmayne, M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bryan, P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Sharples, R. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kaberry, D.
Shepherd, William


Cole, Norman
Keegan, D
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Speir, R. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kimball, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kirk, P. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Lagden, C. W.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Leavey, J. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoortl
Leburn, W. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Davidson, Viscountes
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Teeling, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Temple, John M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Sir James
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, Alan
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wade, D. W.


Ftetcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Calbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Glover, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Wood, Hon. R.


Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.
Woollam, John Victor


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus



Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Grant-Ferris. Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Mr. Brooman-White







NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oliver, G. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Panned, Charles (Leeds W.)


Baird, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Balfour, A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Parker, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Holmes, Horace
Paton, John


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, N.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoushton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Boyd, T. C.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Royle, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech (Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd C. R.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Ledger, R. J.
Steele, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lindgren, G. S,
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McCann, J,
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Diamond, John
MacDermot, Niall
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, T. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Weitzman, D.


Dye, S.
McLeavy, Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Willey, Frederick


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Roy
Williams, David (Neath)


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Finch, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Willis, Eustace, (Edinburgh, E.)


Foot, D. M.
Moody, A. S.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mort, D. L.
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moss, R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. S. Duthie): If the Committee so desires——

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I feel that I owe you a personal apology, Mr. Duthie. In the discussion on the last group of Amendments, I kept referring to you as "Sir John." In the first place, John was wrong, and, secondly, you are not knighted. I took

it for granted that all Chairmen were knights. I do apologise.

The Temporary Chairman: If the Committee so desires, I will put the Question on the next Amendment for the purpose of a Division.

Mr. Marquand: I do not think that we need delay the Committee, Mr. Duthie. We have expressed our opinion already.

9.45 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, column 1, after "including", to insert "widows and".
Of all groups, the widows have been the most neglected. No body of people has been so consistently forgotten. I am not alone in making this statement. It is reinforced by the observations of the Commission of Inquiry. There is no pressure group for widows. They are far too tired and worn and hardworked to go out to enlist support and to form organisations; very much in contrast with other heavy pressure groups. The result is that they are maltreated.
Consider those engaged in occupations which bring in a reasonable salary. Many such women were working when their husbands died. They found then that they had the children to support and the household, clothing and boot and shoe expenses to meet out of their earnings, from which the Income Tax man took £250 straight away. While their husbands were living the husband and wife allowance was received. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can knit his brows as much as he likes, but I know what I am talking about—it is happening to me at the moment. On the death of the husband, the allowance of £250 is swept away and the widow is left to struggle along on a single woman's Income Tax allowance of £140.
That is the fate of the prosperous widow. There is also the poorer widow who receives what is known as the widowed mother's allowance. It is bad enough for mothers with children, but it is much worse when the mother is also a widow and has to cope with household expenses and the need to satisfy young appetites which eat the plates empty day after day. And as soon as her earnings exceed £3 the "docking" process starts again.
One of the greatest scandals of our present administration is the 10s. widow. Reason after reason has been given for the anomaly of the 10s. widow, but if we examine these reasons we find that they are not reasons, but excuses.
The last time I brought this matter up was 11th November, when I queried why the 10s. widow should be asked to pay 2s. extra to increase the pensions of other women who were getting £2 10s. The

reply I got was that the great majority of these ladies were getting 10s. whereas their opposite numbers under National Health Insurance received no pension at all. I got that reply from the Minister of Pensions.
The Minister of Pensions is an honourable man; like Brutus, he is an honourable man but he was far from right. A breakdown of the figures shows that, of the 120,000 widows on 10s., 3,000 are under 40 and have got into the position of having something if they are childless while their opposite numbers who are childless get nothing. There are 27,000 women between the ages of 40 and 50. There is the answer; 30,000 women under 50. Their opposite numbers get nothing at all. To say that an able-bodied woman, even if she is widowed, is far better working and that she should not think that she can hang back on a pension for all time, is a principle to which I would not object, but the right hon. Gentleman was completely wrong when he said that the great majority of these ladies were getting only 10s.
There are 90,000 between the ages of 50 and 60 years of age; 90 to 30 is not the "great majority". What the Minister meant was that the great majority were being maltreated. I asked him to give me the number of widows between 50 and 60 who were getting 50s. His reply was noted by the Press and by other widows. I received any amount of letters, and so, I am sure, did the Minister, from widows between 50 and 60 who said that it was not true and that they knew other widows of 50 with children who were getting the full 50s.
I inquired into this matter and I was told that I just did not understand. How could I, a mere back bencher, follow the logical reasoning of the giant brain on the Government Front Bench? It would appear that the widow who gets 10s. gets it because her husband died under the wrong scheme. The widows of husbands who died under a different scheme get 50s. I do not know if Naughton and Gold made these rules. They seem to be the economics of the Crazy Gang, which is putting a very mild interpretation upon them. One widow may ask another, "How did your husband die?", and the answer may be, "I am sorry, I am going to be very poor, he died under the first scheme". The other widow


could say, "I was much more lucky; mine died under the second scheme."

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I asked exactly the same question as the hon. Lady is asking when her party was in power and got the same silly answers that she has received from our side of the Committee.

Mrs. Mann: I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member. I know he did, and I followed his questions closely. When I began my speech I did not exclude either Front Bench. I have my own trouble, and I hope I have the sympathy of the hon. and gallant Member; I hope also that I will have his vote, because, tonight, we are faced with the position that the 10s. widow has not only had to pay that extra 2s. to allow the other widow to draw five times as much, but soon the poor thing will be paying the whole of the 10s. Why should a widow of 51 draw £2 10s. and a widow of 59 draw 10s.? The older widow has to go back into industry to compete with women half her age. Her struggle to get a job is double that of the younger woman. The widow of 51 has five times more on her contribution than the 10s. widow.
Both sides of the House have treated these women scandalously. The Committee should think about its past sins and try to redeem them by not imposing another penny on the contributions of widows.

Dr. King: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) on the very moving plea she has made on behalf of widows. I hope that other hon. Ladies present will join in that plea as the debate proceeds.
This Amendment, like several others moved during the Committee stage, seeks to exempt from the scope of the new addition to the poll tax some worthy group. We hope that if we proceed long enough we may at last reach a group lowly, mean and humble enough for the Government not to want to take from them this extra 6d. Every hon. Member in the Committee who has attended these debates must by now have realised that even if the Bill imposes a fair burden on those who earn an average income, or above an average income, it imposes an

unfair burden on the poorer sections of the community.
If hon. Members opposite do not agree that it is an unfair burden, they certainly must agree that it imposes a heavier burden on the backs of the poor than on the backs of the rich. We object to that because we think it unjust. If that general statement is true, surely one of the poorest groups in the country is that for which we are pleading, the widows. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), I have repeatedly urged in the House the case of the 10s. widow and widows differentiated from others merely by the date on which their husbands died.
They get little or nothing from the State. They have to earn a very precarious and difficult living. They would benefit, at any rate, to the extent of 4d. a week if the Amendment were accepted. There is the widowed mother, carrying out the noblest job a woman can do in the community, against exceedingly great odds—especially those women, and I know many of them, who make infinite sacrifices to keep their children on at grammar schools after the school-leaving age. That group would benefit by this Amendment.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie that both sides of the Committee have always treated unfairly the widow—as distinct from the widowed mother—who has to earn her living. Most of these women cannot hope to get anything like a worth-while job. The older they are when they have to start working—after bringing up a family and looking after a home—the more difficult it is. They do school meals, they work as home—helps, they do any unskilled work that nobody else who wants to make a career will accept.
These widows have to pay the full insurance charges out of their meagre income. Practically the whole of the 10s. that the State gives to the 10s. widow she hands back in what will now be her weekly contribution of 8s. a week. The standard widow's pension is 50s. a week, but to get this she must be over 50 when her husband dies. Therefore, we have many younger widows getting nothing at all after their children grow up; another and older group that gets 10s. a week if their late husbands were


National Health Insurance contributors and were married before July, 1948; and another group of still older widows who get nothing, because their husbands died quite a time ago, and were not contributors under the old National Health Insurance scheme.
As I have said, these women are doing drudgery jobs, and very often they cannot find jobs. If they earn over 50s. a week, they lose 6d. for each extra Is, they earn up to 70s., and, after that, a 1s. a week is taken off their pension for every Is, they earn. In the Second Reading debate the Minister made great play of the average earnings of our workers, but I submit that the group we are now discussing is earning only about half that average quoted by the Minister. If the majority of the Committee defends this new charge on those with an average income of about £12 a week, I ask for its pity and its generosity for those whose average income must be nearer £5 or £6, but who yet have to pay a full insurance contribution.
If we talk about the contribution going up merely by a few coppers, let us remember all those widows who, in the last twelve months, have faced weekly increases in their contributions from 5s. 6d. to the sum of—if this Bill goes through—8s. a week. I know that the Amendment will not gain much for them, but we are, as we were on earlier Amendments—though with even more force now—pleading for people to whom every penny means something. The recognition that this group of widows have a grim economic struggle on top of their bereavement is something that, I hope, we shall one day bring into the pattern of National Insurance. Tonight, at any rate, we can take a little step towards helping them by accepting this Amendment, as I hope the Minister will.

10.0 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) put the case very movingly, and I was heartened to hear some sympathetic interjections from the other side. We have tried in these various Amendments to bring to the attention of the Minister certain categories that we believe deserve special attention. So far, we have been unsuccessful. Now, we bring this category of worker—the widow—to his attention.

Although my hon. Friend talked about both the widow without children and the widow with children, it is the position of those widows with children that I particularly want to emphasise.
Such a woman is in a very difficult position. She has all kinds of problems. In the first place, she has lost her skill during the time she was married, so that, when her husband dies, she is almost certainly forced into an unskilled occupation or a routine job with very low pay. She has to find accommodation for her children. She has all the worrry and trouble of trying to look after them and arranging for their care while she is at work, which inevitably involves more expense. The good mother also tries to see that her children have, perhaps, a better opportunity than she herself had. The harassed widow is always wondering how she can save a little to help her children.
I remind the Committee of these details, and I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides, realise the special position of such women. I ask the Minister as least to make this exception tonight, if he can make no other, and regard sympathetically our Amendment to except the widow.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): The effect of these two Amendments would be to reduce the contributions payable by employed widows from 1s. 4½d. weekly to 1s. 1d. I will not make any point about the additional stamps involved or the halfpennies in the pay packet; right hon. and hon. Members opposite know about those problems. The Amendment seeks, once again, to create a new category. In any national scheme, there are always arguments for exempting or giving preference to so many classes of citizens that, unless one takes a firm stand, the scheme can quickly cease to achieve its end.
I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) made her plea for consideration of the category to which she referred, but I am sure that she will agree that, if one is to have a national scheme, one must look very carefully before exempting certain categories, because one never knows where to draw the line.

Dr. Summerskill: Our Amendment shows where the line could be drawn.

Mr. Browne: I shall deal with the purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) made a powerful case for special treatment for working widows. Many of us do not realise what a wonderful manager and brave partner we have until she becomes our widow, and then it is too late to show proper appreciation.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman can show proper appreciation now.

Mr. Browne: That is exactly what I was going to say. It is too late to show proper appreciation. We must do that now.
I could, perhaps, make a case for widowers, especially those left with young children. But that case, too, would fall on deaf ears. We, as a nation, have accepted to the full the State's moral responsibility towards widows. They really have not been maltreated, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said. The House of Commons has not treated them scandalously. There is, I submit, no case under the Bill for treating them as a separate category in respect of Health Service contributions.
I will not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie about excessive Income Tax. Although the debate on this Bill, of necessity, goes a little wide, I do not think that I can deal with that.

Mrs. Mann: Will the Joint Under-Secretary deal with the 90,000 widows between 50 and 60 years of age who receive only 10s.?

Mr. Browne: I will deal with the 10s. widow, if I may, in due time.
I would like to look at the position of the working widow. Let us ask ourselves whether she is so much less able to pay than spinsters and other working women that she needs special treatment. Consider the position of this widow. She usually has a home. She usually has her family allowances—[An HON. MEMBER: "And her rent has gone up."] That is another bill. If her husband has qualified for benefit, she receives the widow's allowance for 13 weeks. She receives the

widowed mother's allowance and something for the second child and other children.
If this widow is over 50 she receives her widow's pension, unless her children are still at school and she is treated as a widowed mother. If her husband died as a result of industrial injury, she has an alternative benefit which is more than her widow's pension. In all cases, when she goes to work—and we are talking about working widows—she has revenue coming in. She always has a little something extra under the earning rule if she has children. She can opt whether to pay contributions or not. These widows are surely no worse off than many of their sisters, and it would be wrong, in my view, to give them further preference.
Then there are the widows who, for one reason or another, do not qualify for any of the Welfare State benefits to which I have referred. The reason, as the Committee knows, is usually that they were widowed when they were young and childless.

Mr. S. Silverman: They made the mistake of being widowed too young.

Mr. Browne: I do not appreciate that interjection. The Welfare State has decided in broad terms that such widows, who are normally, but not wholly, younger women, should be treated as single women and should return to work alongside their unmarried sisters. To make a case for the Amendment in respect of those widows, one has to give good reasons why they should pay at a rate less than single women. I do not think that this case can be, or has been, made out.

Mrs. Mann: These women have to buy clothes for their children.

Mr. Browne: I have made the case in two parts. Widows with children receive the full benefits of the Welfare State. Widows without children are treated as single women at the expiry of the 13-week widow's allowance period. It has been rightly held by this House that that is so.

Mr. Popplewell: Before the Minister leaves the question of benefits, he did say that the widow could opt out of paying the full insurance stamp. What benefit does she get by paying the full


insurance stamp? He says that she can opt out and still get the benefits consequent upon her husband's past insurance contributions. What benefit does she receive by continuing to pay the full insurance stamp?

Mr. Browne: If she is a war widow she can get the retirement pension.

Mr. Popplewell: I am not referring to the war widow. I am referring to the ordinary widow.

Mr. Browne: If she does not pay, she does not receive any pension.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Is it not the case that if the 10s. widow fails to pay her full contribution she therefore loses her rights to retirement pension? That is the main difficulty of the 10s. widow. To keep in benefit for retirement purposes she has to pay this excessive proportion.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Browne: I was coming to that point. The case of the 10s. widow has been discussed on numerous occasions. In the present Welfare State she is treated as an unmarried woman.

Mr. Popplewell: This is rather a technical point. It is said that if, when the widow reaches retirement age, she does not continue to pay the full amount of her insurance stamps, she loses her retirement pension. Does this refer to the increase which she would receive if she worked when she passed the age of 60? When she reaches that age she automatically receives the widows' benefit consequent upon her husband's past insurance.

Mr. Browne: If the widow was widowed when she was less than 50 she must earn her life pension herself.
I want to return to the case of the 10s. widow. She is treated as a single woman. Because her husband qualified her for 10s., she receives a pension of that amount which is not part of the scheme. It is clear that the case for the 10s. widow is weaker than that for the childless widow who does not qualify under the National Insurance scheme. The 10s. widow is 10s. better off than her sister, whose husband died after July, 1958, without having participated in the old contributory pensions scheme.
I think that I have answered all the points that have been raised. I can only recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member has not answered my questions. Will he get in touch with his Department and let me have an answer to the points put forward?

Mr. Browne: Yes. It is a question of National Insurance and not health, but I will see that the hon. Member receives an answer.

Dr. Summerskill: I had hoped that on this occasion, when the whole Committee had shown sympathy with the widows, the Minister might have given way. I understand why he did not reply, but asked a younger colleague to do so. In view of what I consider to be an inhuman response, I ask the Committee to divide.

Mr. Mellish: I support what my hon. Friends have said. I should think that in my constituency more females are employed than in any other of its size. We know the problem involved. We have vast numbers of women whose husbands have been killed whilst at work—in the docks, for instance—or in the 1914–18 War. They have lived a wretched life under successive Conservative Governments. What they receive today is a pitiful amount, and most of them have to go to work in order to live in a condition of some decency.
To qualify for a pension in her own right a widow must pay 8s. a week in stamps, although she is paying for many benefits which she cannot receive. There is maternity benefit, for instance. A woman of fifty years of age is not likely to qualify for that. This 8s. is a tremendous hardship to these people.
We are back to the old argument. When a Labour Government returns to power they will introduce their national superannuation proposals, when people's pensions will be based upon what they earn and upon their conditions of employment. Such things will then really count.
It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak at the Dispatch Box without understanding what is going on. He has been asked some intelligent questions and does not


know the answer to any of them. Apparently all he is going to do now is to write a letter. To whom is he going to write? He had better write to all of us on this side of the Committee and not just to one of my hon. Friends who asked him some questions. We should all like to know whether the Minister makes any discoveries. I wonder what his colleagues who are supposed to advise him are doing.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "This case does not warrant special attention." This case does warrant special attention, for many widows have had a hard time and they are entitled to some relief today.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 214.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[10.22 p.m


Ainsley, J. W.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oswald, T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Healey, Denis
Paling, Rt. Hn. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holmes, Horace
Pargiter, G. A.


Baird, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Parker, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)
Paton, John


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bottomley, Bt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Probert, A. R.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, H. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Redhead, E. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Hlbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Rt.Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Short, E. W.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Collins, V. J, (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Kenyon, C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Cove, w. G.
Ledger, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, W. (Consett)


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
McCann, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Diamond, John
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dodds, N. N.
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dye, S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee. E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W H.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nest (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, David (Neath)


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Foot, D. M.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openthaw)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mort, D. L.
Winterbottom, Richard


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moss, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholls, Harmar


Aitken, W. T.
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Alport, C. J. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, C. R. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Malor Sir William
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Oakshott, H. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborne, C.


Ashton, H.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peel, W.J.


Barber, Anthony
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Barter, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pott, H. P.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holt, A. F.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bingham, R. M.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Ramsden, J. E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Rawlinson, Peter


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Gerald Cambridgeshire)
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh.S.)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Bryan, P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Carr, Robert
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Sharples, R. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Channon, Sir Henry
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, D.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Keegan, D,
Speir, R. M.


Cole, Norman
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kimball, M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kirk, P. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Storey, S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leather, E. H. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Currie, G. B. H.
Leburn, W. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Deedes, W. F.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Teeling, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Temple, John M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R. (Croydon, S.)


Elliott, R.W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Errington, Sir Eric
McKibbin, Alan
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, R.Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wade, D. W.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Freeth, Denzil
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wall, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Glover, D-
Marshall, Douglas.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Wood, Hon. R.


Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.
Woollam, John Victor


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.



Grant-Ferris, WgCdr. R. (Nantwich)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Mr. Wills and


Grimond, J.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Mr. Brooman-White.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Neave, Airey

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, col. 2, to leave out "2s. 2d."and to insert "1s. 8½d."

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment together with the two Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in line 22, col. 2, to leave out "1s. 8d." and to insert "1s. 4½d.," and in line 23, col. 2, to leave out "1s. 2d." and insert "1s. 0½d."

Mr. Marquand: Your suggestion is acceptable to us, Sir Gordon.
I will not weary the Committee by explaining again why these figures have been chosen. The object of the Amendments is to draw attention to the very heavy impost which it is proposed to lay upon self-employed persons. Most hon. Members will have an interest in this matter because they are treated as self-employed persons for the purposes of National Insurance and National Health contributions. But it is not on behalf of myself or other hon. Members that I ask the Committee to pay close attention to what it is that we are asked to do in respect of this class. There are numerous persons in this class whose financial position is much more difficult than that of Members of Parliament.
The leaflet issued last month by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance tells us that ministers of religion are normally included in the self-employed class, together with persons trading in partnership, farmers, crofters, independent smallholders, shopkeepers, street traders and hawkers. Hon. Members opposite need not feel that by voting for our Amendment tonight they are voting for themselves. They can feel that they are voting for the class of the community for which they always express strong support, the small independent business man, the crofter, the smallholder and people of that kind.
It is difficult to separate the well-to-do people who are included from the poor persons. People are excepted from payment only if they are working on their own and if they earn less than £2 a week. I can hardly believe it, but that is what

is stated. However small may be a person's income, if it is over £2 a week he is asked to pay these contributions, and, unless the Amendment is accepted, will be asked to pay another 6d. a week.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance will be aware, there is already great difficulty about collecting the contributions from those with the smallest incomes. If the £32 million extra which is required for the Health Service were to be taken, as we think it should be, from the Income Tax payers, the well-to-do among the self-employed would pay their fair share.
The smallholder, crofter or street trader, who has a hard job to make a living at all would be almost exempt from payment of this extra charge, but, as it is, the charge is bound to fall heavily upon some of these groups. Is it wise, in view of the existing difficulties of collection to impose this extra charge? The Conservative Party extols the virtues of the small independent trader and businessman. Does it make sense to impose this penal tax upon them?
We shall be reminded that this is only a small increase of 6d. per week, but what are these people paying already? Men in the over-18 group are paying 11s. 6d. per week, and the increase will bring it to 12s. Boys under 18—one of my hon. Friends described in an earlier debate how one of them carried on an independent business to keep his widowed mother—are now required to pay 6s. 7d., which the increase will bring up to 7s. Id. Girls under 18 are required to pay 5s. 9d., which will go up to 6s. 3d.
These are extremely high rates of tax to impose upon some of the poorest in the community who deserve encouragement, not discouragement, and upon people who are trying to carry on business. To do it at this time is a grave error when there lies open to the Government a simple, fair expedient of placing the charge where it should be, on the Income Tax payer, who pays according to his ability and according to his family responsibilities.
The sentimental case is not so strong here as with widows, but the economic case deserves the serious attention of the


Government. How much further will they go in the direction of making it virtually impossible to carry on small business? Do they think that this is wise? Ought they not to abandon the Bill, think it over again and then impose the burden of £32 million on shoulders fitted to bear it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not persevering. He is still seeking to undermine the principle and the main purpose of the Bill as accepted by the Committee of Ways and Means and by the House of Commons. It will not surprise him, and hardly even disappoint him, if I say that I am also persevering in my determination not to have the principle of the Bill eroded away by any of the right hon. Gentleman's far-reaching Amendments.
It might be helpful if I indicated the broad picture of the principles and the amount of money involved in regard to self-employed persons in the context of these Amendments.
There are about 1¼ million self-employed men and rather less than a quarter of a million self-employed women, making a total of nearly 1½ million people in this category. The right hon. Gentleman devoted part of his argument to the hard lot of the self-employed juvenile, but, though he painted a moving picture of their distressing position, I am advised that there are hardly any of them at all, so that is really not very material. Their numbers are negligible.
Perhaps I could give the figures of the loss of revenue that would accrue if the Amendment were accepted. While not in the same degree, of course, as the loss that would have flowed from acceptance of the corresponding Amendment about employed persons, it would total about £1½ million a year—certainly not a negligible sum. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly pointed out the very diverse occupations of self-employed people, but the very fact of the diversity and the variety, as he will appreciate, does not make it any easier to discriminate in their favour.
Though they comprise people like crofters and hawkers, of whom he spoke, they also comprise Ministers and Queen's

Counsel. Those are both reasons why I personally might feel a certain tenderness towards them. It is true, as he has said, that the Conservative Party does have a special concern for the interests of those people because of the contributions that they make to the stability of society, but we do not succumb to the temptation to destroy the pattern as between employed and self-employed people because of any traditional tenderness we may have for those categories.
We have now, of course, to look at the pattern of contributions in the light of the decision to which the Committee has already come in rejecting the Amendment relating to employed people. We should, I think, get the result that if we now adopted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment we would be open to the charge of having distorted the pattern in this rather narrow Bill, and in the modest adjustment it makes, to the detriment of the employed person.
The position would be this. At present, the employed man pays 1s. 4½d. in respect of his National Health Service contribution. The self-employed man now pays Is. 8d. Under the Bill, as the Committee has now decided, the employed man will pay 1s. 10½d., but if this Amendment was accepted the self-employed man would be paying only 1s. 8½d. We would, therefore, have changed the pattern from a payment of 3½d. less by the employed man to one of 2d. less by the self-employed man. I can well imagine what hon. Members opposite, less moderate and temperate than is the right hon. Gentleman, would say when they got to the hustings. They would say that for the sake of Ministers and Queen's Counsel and the like we had made this very large distortion to the detriment of the employed man. I would say:
… in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
10.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member did not mention, in what otherwise was a very fairly put point of view, that the Bill makes what I think is a reasonable easement of the position of the self-employed. It gives as much easement to them as can be done without distortion of the pattern against the employed person to an extent which


would be unreasonable in the context of the modest adjustments in the Bill.
As the Committee will know, in a previous increase of the National Health Service contribution the increase for the self-employed person was equal to the sum of the increases paid by both the employer and the employee in the Class 1 category. That was the case in the 1957 Act. Under this Bill, however, the self-employed, both men and women, will pay only the same increase as the employee. In other words, they will not have to pay. as they have done before, the additional increase of the employer. That, so to speak, will be credited to them, so there is some adjustment of the pattern in their favour.
That is as far as we could reasonably be expected to go, having regard to the narrow context of the Bill and the danger of distortion of the pattern to the detriment of the employed person. Therefore, while certainly respecting the persuasiveness and temperate quality of the right hon. Member's advocacy, I regret that I must ask my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment, if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Marquand: This is an outstanding example of a case in which the tax ought to be put on to the Income Tax payers. It is the most outstanding example of all in a situation in which large numbers of contributors should pay more for the cost of the National Health Service and are not asked to do so while an extremely heavy burden is placed on lower income groups. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman came so far as to say that he would relieve the juveniles, I would gladly withdraw the Amendment. He did not accept my case that this is a very harsh imposition on young people. Although he did not accept my case, hon. Members must feel that it is a very harsh imposition. The Minister waved it aside and said they are very few in number. If the Committee is to reject a case on the ground that it affects very few, that is so bad that we must register our protest.

Question put, That "2s. 2d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 154.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[10.48 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Deedes, W. F.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Aitken, W. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hornby, R. P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Duncan, Sir James
Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Arbuthnot, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Armstrong, C. W.
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Ashton, H.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hurd, A. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Baldwin, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Barber, Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Barter, John
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Baxter, sir Beverley
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Gammans, Lady
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Bingham, R. M.
Glover, D.
Kaberry, D.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Godber, J. B.
Keegan, D.


Bishop, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Body, R. F.
Gower, H. R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Boothby, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kimball, M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kirk, P. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Green, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimond, J.
Leavey, J. A.


Bryan, P.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Leburn, W. G.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Carr, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Cooke, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Longden, Gilbert


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
McKibbin, Alan


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Macmillan, Rt.Hn, Harold (Bromley)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hirst, Geoffrey
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)




Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, J. E.
Teeling, W.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Rawlinson, Peter
Temple, John M.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marshall, Douglas
Rippon, A. G. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Mathew, R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Mawby, R. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vane, W. M. F.


Neave, Airey
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nicholls, Hartnar
Sharples, R. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wall, Patrick


Oakshott, H. D.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Osborne, C.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Page, R. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Peel, W, J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Woollam, John Victor


Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.



Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)



Pitt, Miss E. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Pott, H. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Powell, J. Enoch
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Mr. Brooman-White.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Owen, W. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pargiter, C. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.


Baird, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pentland, N.


Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Prentice, R. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Probert, A. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Redhead, E. C.


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Short, E. W.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ledger, R. J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Soskice, R:. Hon. Sir Frank


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Stones, W. (Consett)


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J,


Delargy, H. J.
McCann, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Diamond, John
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dodds, N. N.
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dye, S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A.
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Fletcher, Eric
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths. David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)



Hayman, F, H.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Healey, Denis
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Wilkins.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oswald, T.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, column 2, to leave out "2s. 2d." and to insert "1s. 8½d."

The Chairman: With this Amendment we can also take the Amendments in line 26, column 2, leave out "1s. 8d." and insert "1s. 4½d." and in line 26. column 2, leave out "1s. 2d." and insert "1s. 0½d."

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir Charles. In view of the Minister's intransigence, I have little hope that he will prove responsive to the Amendment, but I will persevere. I agree that part of my case is not as strong as I would like; nevertheless, I want to put to him a point which has probably not occurred to him. When I was a Minister I always thought that it was anomalous to call Class III persons non-employed The word "non-employed" includes those who have no employer, but to the person not familiar with our legislation it would appear to indicate those who do no work at all.
There is one category of people in Class III which is hard-working, and should therefore receive some sympathy from the Minister. I accept the fact that many non-employed people live on investments and other private incomes and may very well be parasitical in their approach to life, but I wonder if the Minister has considered the fact that the word also includes unpaid social workers. I know that that designation does not always command sympathy, and such persons are sometimes thought of as people who work very few hours, but it has occurred to me that many such persons are also found among unmarried councillors. Those hon. Members who have served on local councils will agree that such persons work very hard. I do not know whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance disagrees; I imagine that the Minister of Health is not so certain about it as she is.
11.0 p.m.
I see that there is a division of opinion on the Front Bench opposite. Perhaps we have not considered this before. Whereas the definition of a non-employed person includes those who live on investments or other private income, those who do unpaid social work, students,

women looking after the home or relatives and doing no paid work, it should also include the person who voluntarily works in a council and has no employer. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary nods her head. I would put this to her——

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): What the right hon. Lady said which caused me to nod my head was that all single women on a council would be non-employed. That cannot be correct. I was a single woman on a city council, but I was employed in another sphere.

Dr. Summerskill: Then the hon. Lady was an employed person. We are talking about non-employed people. I am completely right, I am sure. I am talking about individuals who serve as councillors and are not paid any salary in their spare time. I am thinking of a number of single women across the Bridge who serve the whole of the London County Council area and work very hard but who cone under Class III as being non-employed persons.
The hon. Lady must not quibble. Many single women work but there are plenty of single women who do not work but serve on a local authority. The hon. Lady ought to withdraw now because she is wasting time. She should have known this point in her job without having to argue. The point I am making is that here is a category of people called non-employed who serve the community very well, who are not paid but who pay this very large contribution. I am asking the Minister to reconsider this contribution. The contribution at present is, for women aged 18 to 60, 7s. 3d.; for girls of 16 to 18, 4s. 4d.; for men. 9s. 1d.: and for boys, 5s. 3d. This is for the non-employed. It is a curious anomaly. Here we have a body of people who work very hard indeed and who are unpaid, but nevertheless who have to make this quite substantial contribution towards the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady is very persuasive on behalf of these non-employed people. The Committee probably detected in her manner of advocacy a consciousness that this was not really a very strong case, although not without sympathetic undertones. I


share with the right hon. Lady sympathy and respect for the single women who do social work, and so forth; but I do not think it constitutes a reason to make what I called in the last Amendment an unreasonable distortion of the pattern of contributions in the narrow context of this Bill.
The right hon. Lady has referred to the total amount paid by these women: 7s. 3d. for the total weekly contribution, which under the provisions of the Bill would go up to 7s. 7d. Of that, 5s. 11d. is the National Insurance contribution proper, the rest being the National Health Service contribution with which we are more particularly concerned. I am advised, though this is not my sphere, that all but about 6d. of the 5s. 11d. is for the retirement pension and therefore, so to speak, is a good investment.
Concerning the National Health Service contributions, I spoke at some length during the Second Reading debate, when I said that I thought the contributors generally got a good bargain for what they had to pay. There are about 250,000 non-employed women and about the same number of non-employed men, and here we have the same difficulty—perhaps even more aggravated—that we encountered during the last debate on the self-employed people; the great range and diversity of the positions of the people involved. I can only repeat that the non-employed people have the same moderate easement of their position as the self-employed.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I gather that there are 1½ million self-employed and 500,000 non-employed who pay contributions.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. I understand that there are 250,000 men and 250,000 women.

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps not now but on some other occasion the Minister can tell me how many people there are in these categories who should pay but do not pay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about distorting the pattern, but I am sure that this is where

the present Bill distorts the pattern. I am sure that the flat rate contribution goes far beyond the non-employed and self-employed people.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think I follow the right hon. Gentleman. If their income is under £156 a year, they fall within the small income exemption limit, otherwise they are liable. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about evasion, that is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be happy to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the modest adjustment made to help the non-employed is as far as we can reasonably go in the context of this Bill without distorting the pattern, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Popplewell: This category includes people whose earnings are less than 40s. a week. Can the Minister say how many people come within that category? They are mentioned in his circular.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is of course not my circular but that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman the number of people falling within the small income exemption limit. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.

Dr. Summerskill: There are people who fall under hardship, including the category I mentioned, and the women who stay at home to help other people and do not receive any wage at all. I agree that they can opt out if they like. But there is a category of women who work very hard and receive little pay. Under the circumstances, I feel that we should divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, That "2s. 2d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 144.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimond, J.
Neave, Airey


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholls, Harmar


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Gurden, Harold
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, H. D.


Ashton, H.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Osborne, C.


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, R. G.


Baldock, Lt.Comdr. J. M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Barber, Anthony
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peel, W. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Barter, John
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Beamish, Col. Tutton
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pott, H. P.


Belt, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, J. Enoch


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bingham, R. M.
Hornby, R. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ramsden, J. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Rawlinson, peter


Body, R. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Redmayne, M.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Kurd, A. R.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H,
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bryan, P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Carr, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Channon, Sir Henry
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Sharples, R. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Cooke, Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kaberry, D.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Keegan, D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kerby, Cap. H. B.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kimball, M.
Storey, S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedés, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leburn, W. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.>


Duncan, Sir James
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Teeling, W.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Temple, John M.


Elliot, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Finlay, Graeme
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McKibbin, Alan
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W, M. F.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Freeth, Denzil
Macpherson, Nlall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wall, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Glover, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwioh)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Bowles, F. C.
Cullen, Mrs, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyd, T. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Deer, G.


Awbery, S. S.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Delargy, H. J.


Barrel, J.
Carmichael, J.
Diamond, John


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Blenkinsop, A.
Clunie, J.
Dye, S.


Blyton, W. R.
Coldrick, W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock. George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)







Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Fernyhough, E.
Ledger, R. J.
Randall, H. E.


Finch, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, E, C


Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Logan, D. G.
Rodgers, George (Kensington, N.)


Grey, C. F.
McCann, J.
Ross, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, J. E.
Short, E. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Naill
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Skeffington, A. M.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hayman, F. H.
Mann, Mrs. dean
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Healey, Denis
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mason, Roy
Steele, T.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mellish, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Holmes, Horace
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moss, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
West, D. G.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Janner, B.
Owen, W. J.
Willey, Frederick


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, David (Neath)


Jeger, George (Coole)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pentland, N.
Woof, R. E.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kenyon, C,
Probert, A. R.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Question put, That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 131.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[11.19 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Aitken, W. T.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Alport, C. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hornby, R. P.


Arbuthnot, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Armstrong, C W.
Duncan, Sir James
Horobin, Sir Ian


Ashton, H.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Atkins, H. E.
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hurd, A. R.


Barber, Anthony
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Barter, John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Iremonger, T. L.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gammans, Lady
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bingham, R. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, D.
Kaberry, D.


Body, R. F.
Godber, J. B.
Keegan, D,


Boothby, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gower, H. R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kimball, M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kirk, P. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Green, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bryan, P.
Grimond, J.
Leavey, J. A.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Leburn, W. G.


Carr, Robert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Channon, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Longden, Gilbert


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
McKibbin, Alan


Craddook, Beresford (Sperthorne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)





Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Pott, H. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Powell, J. Enoch
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ramsden, J. E.
Teeling, W.


Marshall, Douglas
Rawlinson, Peter
Temple, John M.


Mathew, R.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mawby, R. L.
Rees-Davies, w, R.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Nabarro, C. D. N.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Neave, Airey
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Nicholls, Harmar
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Roper, Sir Harold
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wall, Patrick


Oakshott, H. D.
Sharples, R. C.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Page, R. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Peel, W. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm



Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.


Baird, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, N.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Prentice, R. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jarmer, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Probert, A. R.


Bowles, F. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs.S.)
Randall, H. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt.Hon.A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Ledger, R. J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Sorensen, R. W.


Diamond, John
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacDermot, Niall
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dye, S.




Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.
Woof, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Zilliacus, K.


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.



Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss M.

Mr Holmes and Mr. Short.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.